Log in

Colourable legislation i.e. indirectly doing something which cannot be done directly. What is pivotal is the fact that the legislature (usually this is associated with state legislature) does not possess the power to make law upon a particular aspect but nonetheness indirectly makes one.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation and Legislative Accountability, in a Parliamentary system, unlike the Presidential system, lays emphasis on accountability. According to the scheme of our Constitution, an indirect Separation of Power exists in India , which means a balance has been made between the different components of government i.e. between Legislature, Judiciary and Executive. The primary function of Legislature is to frame laws. Whenever, Legislature tries to shift this balance of power towards itself then Doctrine of Colorable Legislation is applied to take account of Legislative Accountability. Though the different components of government are supreme in itself but still they are accountable because as I had already mentioned that in India indirect separation of power exists i.e. distribution of power with proper checks and balances. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation states, “Whatever legislature can’t do directly, it can’t do indirectly”. By applying this principle the fate of the impugned legislation is decided.
The other part deals with “Legislative Accountability”. Legislative Accountability is nowhere directly contemplated in Constitution of India but can be inferred from the practice that we are following from a number of years. Legislative Accountability means excessive secrecy and open abuse of the public trust is not tolerated. There can be two types of Legislative Accountability
1. Legal Accountability
2. Moral Accountability
Though when Legislature is given such a power obviously it is morally accountable but when we say Legislature is Legally Accountable more than that of Morally Accountable, then Doctrine of Colourable Legislation comes into play. But I feel that this Legislature is accountable more of morally than that of legally, but as my project topic reflects its vice-versa so I am dealing with more of legal accountability than of moral accountability. I would also be dealing with the Extent and Context of Legal Accountability with reference to the power conferred to it.

Under the constitution of India, exclusive jurisdiction for the Union and the State has been conferred regarding subject matters of legislation. This has been provided by Article 246 which has demarcated the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament and the state assemblies by outlining the different subjects under List I for the Union, List II for the State and List III for both, as given in the seventh schedule to the Indian Constitution. As a consequence the conflicts of jurisdiction arise, due to the very fact that we have separate lists for the Union and the State to legislate upon. It often happens that the strict constitutional boundaries are transgressed in legislation inviting judicial review of the said Bill/Act. The enactment of legislation is a function of the legislative power. In order to decide whether a particular legislation is unconstitutional for offending the constitutional limitations of distribution of powers, the Court examines the enactment with some strictness. The Legislature can only make laws within its legislative competence. The legislative competence may be limited by specific List entries, or be restricted by other constitutional limitations and prohibitions. It cannot over-step the area of its legislative capability. A simple rule is followed in this regard which is to find out if the legislating body had the power to legislate directly. If it is not so, then the legislature cannot hide its incompetence by purporting to legislate indirectly. What it cannot do directly, it cannot attempt to do it indirectly. Therefore, the substance of the legislation must be articulated for the purpose of determining whether what it is enacted, it can really do.

CASE LAWS ON COLORABLE LEGISLATION

No malafides to be attributed to legislatureIn Hari Krishna Bhargav v. Union of India [1966] 59 ITR 243 (SC) ; AIR 1966 SC 619, the following observations made in the case of K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo AIR 1953 SC 375 approved : "...........The doctrine of colourable legislation does not involve any question of bona fides and mala fides on the part of the Legislature." If the law is settled that no malafides could be attributed to the Legislature, an argument that the amendment has been passed only with a view to punish the ,first respondent is not available to the first respondent. The legislature as a body cannot be accused of having passed a law for an extraneous purpose. Therefore, no malafides could be attributed to the legislature.A legislature does not act on extraneous consideration. But for lack of legislative competence or for being arbitrary, a legislative action cannot be struck down on ground of mala fide

[MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI Vs.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAE BAREILLY AND ORS., 1993 AIR 2042; 1992 SCR (3) 338.] A Legislature does not act on extraneous consideration. Ordinance issued in 1990 was replaced by Act 19 of 1990. The Act came into force on 24th July 1990 but it was made retrospective with effect from 15th February 1990, the date when the ordinance was issued. But for lack of legislative competence or for being arbitrary a legislative action cannot be struck down on ground of malafides

[.See;State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, [1992] (2) 5 p.165.)]Indisputably, there exists a presumption as regard constitutionality of a statute. Rule of presumption in favour of constitutionality, however, only shifts the burden of proof and rests it on the shoulders of the person who attacks it. It is for that person to show that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional principles.
[See Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs. the Union of India and others AIR 1951 SC 41 : 1950 SCR 869] But this rule is subject to the limitation that it is operative only till the time it becomes clear and beyond reasonable doubt that the legislature has crossed its limits. This rule in its application as principle of construction means that if two meanings are possible then the courts will reject the one which renders it unconstitutional and accept the other upholding the validity of the impugned legislation.
The validity of a validating law has to be judged mainly be judging, firstly whether a legislature possesses competence over the subject matter i.e., whether by validation, the legislature exercises competence over the subject matter and secondly whether by validation the legislature has removed the defect which the court had found in the previous law and thirdly whether it is consistent with the provisions of part III of the Constitution. Section 42 of the Amending Act is valid and by virtue of the said section, there cannot be any order for refund in the instant case.[ Misrilal Jain etc. etc. v. State of Orissa and Another., AIR 1977 SC 1686-[1977] 3 SCR 714: Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. Anr v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 192=[1970] 1 SCR 388; Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad, etc. v. New Shorock Spg & Wvg. Co. Ltd. etc., AIR 1970 SC 1292=[1971] 1 SCR 288; I.N. Sakeena v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2650 [1976] 3 SCR 237.]When the legislature had the power to make a law with respect to any subject it had all the ancillary and incidental power to make that law effective.

In the instant case [STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.Vs.HARIHAR PRASAD DEBUKA ETC., 1989 AIR 1119; 1989 SCR (1) 796]the notification shows the purpose, namely, to prevent evasion and facilitate assessment of sales tax. The permits will indirectly help assessment by ascertaining whether tax would be payable or not. The permit would enable the carrier to cross the State territory by producing it if and when needed and thus would promote rather than impede inter-State trade. A declaration may also serve the public purpose by finding out unauthorised trade or business to which freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse would not apply. Thus, the impugned notification is a measure in exercise of a power incidental to the levy of sales tax and it could not be said to have been a colourable exercise of power to impede, restrict or barricade inter-State trade in respect of which Bihar State Legislature has no power to legislate[STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.Vs.HARIHAR PRASAD DEBUKA ETC., 1989 AIR 1119; 1989 SCR (1) 796[Article 304(b) clearly permits the State Legislature to impose such a reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest].