Compilation of Famous Doctrines

This article was originally a part of Samajho's Corner Premium Content but has been unlocked for you to assess our quality of content.
Join Samajho's Corner Now to get full access to all Premium Articles for 18 months.

Relevance: GS II: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions, and basic structure.

What is meant by doctrines?

• A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case.
• A doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied and allows for it to be equally applied to like cases. When enough judges make use of the process, it may become established as the de facto method of deciding like situations.
• Some of the famous doctrines that are frequently used while giving the judgments are:

The doctrine of Colourable Legislation

• It is based upon the doctrine of power separation. Separation of power mandates to strike power of balance between different state components.
• It is based on the maxim that “what cannot be done directly, cannot also be done indirectly”.
• This doctrine of colourable legislation is applied when a Legislature does not have the right to make law upon a particular subject but indirectly makes one.
• Application of this Doctrine: K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo And Other v. The State Of Orissa, “If the Constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers amongst different bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by specific legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of fundamental rights, questions do arise as to whether the legislature in a particular case has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers”.
• The Court has laid down certain tests for discovering whether any particular Act constitutes colourable legislation.
  1. The court must not look into its form or the label but the substance of the law which the legislature has given it.
  2. The court must look at the object as well as the effect of the law.
  3. If the legislature proceeds under a legislative plan the court must read all the statutes constituting that plan and determine the combined effect.

The doctrine of Pith and Substance

• Pith and substance is a legal doctrine used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
• According to this doctrine, it is examined to check its“true nature and character” in order to ascertain in what list it falls.
• It provides a degree of flexibility. It is widely used in determining whether the state is within its power to make a statute that involves a subject mentioned in the union list of the constitution.
• It is applied in the case State of Bombay Vs F.N Balasar, by the supreme court. This was the first important judgment that upheld the pith and substance.

 The doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers

• This principle supplements the doctrine of Pith and Substance.
• The doctrine provided that the power to legislate on a subject requires the power to legislate on matters that are fairly related to that subject.
• The power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter that can be said to be reasonably included in the topics, it was held in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Chawala AIR 1959.

The doctrine of Basic Structure

• The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature.
• The doctrine is recognized in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda.
• It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted.
• The basic features of the Indian Constitution have not been clearly defined by the Judiciary. The claim of any specific feature of the Constitution to be a “basic” feature is determined by the Court on the basis of the cases.

The doctrine of Harmonious construction

• Harmonious construction is a principle of statutory interpretation used in the Indian legal system. It holds that when two provisions of a legal text seem to conflict, they should be interpreted so that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant or nullified.
• It states that a provision of the statute should not be interpreted or construed in isolation but as a whole, so as to remove any inconsistency or repugnancy.
• It brings harmony between the various lists referred to in Indian Constitution Schedule 7. In CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, the supreme court stated five important principles and they are: 
  1. The courts must avoid a clash on contradicting provisions and they must construe the opposing provisions so as to harmonize them. 
  2. The provision of two sections respectively cannot defeat each other unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
  3. When it is difficult to totally reconcile the distinctions in the conflicting provision, the courts must decipher them in such a way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.
  4. The courts must also keep in mind, the interpretation that makes the provision ambiguous or useless is not harmonious construction.
  5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to make it pointless.

Doctrine of Eclipse

• The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the principle that a law that violates Fundamental Rights is not nullity or void ab initio but becomes only unenforceable.
• It is Overshadowed by the Fundamental Rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. 
• According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
• The doctrine of eclipse states that an existing law that is inconsistent with a fundamental right, although it becomes inoperative from the date of the constitution’s beginning, is not entirely dead.
• By amending the constitution’s relevant fundamental rights, the conflict can be eliminated so that the eclipse vanishes and the entire law becomes valid. The first case in which this doctrine was applied was Bhikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

Doctrine of Severability

• It is also known as the doctrine of separability. It protects our Fundamental Rights, as it is mentioned in  Article 13(1) of the Constitution that All laws enforce in India, before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights shall to the extent of that inconsistency be void.
• But the whole law or act would not be held invalid, but only the provisions of the law or act which are not inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights.
• This is what the Doctrine of severability is. But it is only possible if the part which is inconsistent with the law is separated from the whole law.
• If both the valid and invalid part is so closely mix up with each other that it cannot be separated then the whole law or act will be held invalid.

The doctrine of Judicial Review

• It is of American origin. The doctrine of judicial review refers to the power of the Judiciary to interpret the law and to declare the law that is inconsistent with the constitution void.
• According to this doctrine, the Executive and the Legislature’s review power is with Judiciary. It is for checking the exercise of the power of public authorities, whether they are constitutional, quasi-judicial, or governmental. 
• Both the Supreme Court and the High Court exercise the power of the Judicial Review. But the final power to determine the constitutional validity of any law is in the hands of India’s Supreme Court.
• It can be conducted in respect of all Central and State laws, the orders and ordinances of the executives, and constitutional amendments.

 The Doctrine of Repugnancy

• The term “repugnancy” refers to inconsistency between state and Union law.
• Article 254 establishes the “Doctrine of Repugnancy,” which serves as a safeguard for resolving disputes between the States and the Union.
• The Supreme Court ruled in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India that where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will take precedence and the State Act will become void due to the repugnancy.

The doctrine of Territorial Nexus

• Article 245 provides for the laws of the State to be made in the territory of the State and not in relation to extraterritorial law, provided that there is a link between the State and the purpose of the law.
• Article 245(1) states that the Parliament of India has the authority to make laws for the entire or any part of India. Similarly, state legislation can accomplish the same thing. According to Article 245, such laws cannot be declared invalid because they are extraterritorial (2). This doctrine is used to determine whether a specific piece of legislation falls within the territorial nexus or not.
• Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Tata Iron Steel v. the State of Bihar.  

The Doctrine of Parens patriae

• In law,Parens patriae refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child, individual, or animal who is in need of protection.
• For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.
• The first time in India that the Uttarakhand court has had invoked the ‘parens patriae’ doctrine for cow protection 

The doctrine of Casus Omissus

• Omissus is a Greek word that means “cases of omission.”
• The courts cannot provide for a matter that should have been covered by a statute.
• A casus omissus cannot be provided by the courts by judicial interpretation unless there is a reasonable need for it and the justification for it can be found in the four corners of the law itself.
• The first and most important rule of construction is that the legislature's purpose must be contained in the words used by the legislature.

The Doctrine of sovereign immunity

• Sovereign immunity is essential “A government’s immunity from being sued in its own courts without its consent.” Sovereign immunity has been enshrined under the British Common Law principle of rex non potest peccare i.e. the king can do no wrong.
• In England, the growth of the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been influenced by the immunity of the local sovereign. Sovereign immunity as a concept got embedded in the Indian legal system with the arrival of the British.
• When the British colonized India, they brought along with them new ideas, ideologies, culture, and laws. One of these many new introductions to our nation was the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

The doctrine of Due process of law

• It not only examines that there is any law to deny life and individual freedom but also checks if the law made is reasonable, just, and not arbitrary.
• If the Supreme Court finds any law to be not fair, it will declare it void. Individual rights can be treated more fairly with the help of this doctrine.
• Under this doctrine, the state should respect all the legal rights owed to a person by the state as it is a legal requirement and laws that states enact must conform to the laws of the land like – fairness, fundamental rights, liberty, etc.
• In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the court while delivering the judgment used “Procedure established by law” instead of  “Due process of law” however it must be ‘ right and fair and fair ‘ and ‘ not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, ‘ otherwise it would not be a procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be met.

The doctrine of Constitutional Morality

• The doctrine of constitutional morality is an emphatic guarantee that the Supreme Court of India is committed to protecting all minorities, despite opposition from majoritarian governments.
• Constitutional morality is not limited only to following the constitutional provisions literally but is based on values like individual autonomy and liberty; equality without discrimination; recognition of identity with dignity; the right to privacy.
• Second, the doctrine of constitutional morality led the Court to hold that it plays a counter-majoritarian role within the constitutional scheme.
• Constitutional morality means adherence to the core principles of constitutional democracy. For Example: In Supreme Court’s Sabarimala verdict religious freedom, gender equality, and the right of women to worship guaranteed under Article 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution was reinstated which struck down the practice of banning entry of women of a certain age to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala as unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The Indian constitution is unique in itself and evolves with the needs of society. These doctrines also evolve with time and the situation. Doctrines make the constitution flexible so that it can adopt the varied dimensions of a dynamic society.

Other Doctrines in News:

The Doctrine of laissez-faire

• Laissez-faire was both a political and economic philosophy. The prevailing philosophy in the nineteenth century was that a man following his own goals would produce the best results for the society in which he lived.
• The state's function was to preserve order and security while avoiding interfering with an individual's ability to pursue his own objectives.
• The guiding philosophy behind laissez-faire, a French word that translates to “leave alone” (literally, “let you do”), is that the less the government gets involved in the economy, the better off businesses and society as a whole will be. Free-market capitalism relies heavily on laissez-faire economics.

The Doctrine of Polluter Pay

• The Polluter Pays Principle was introduced in environmental law to make the party liable for causing “pollution” compensate for the harm done to the natural environment.
• In basic terms, “the Polluter Pays Principle” is the widely held belief that those who cause pollution should pay the price.
• The ‘Polluter Pays Principle,' also known as ‘Extended Producer Responsibility,' is a policy that requires polluters to pay for their actions. This is an idea that Thomas Lindhqvist proposed to the Swedish government in 1990.
• The credit for popularizing the ‘Polluter Pays Principle for the first time goes to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 
• The Supreme Court of India interpreted the ‘Polluter Pays principle’ as the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.
• The Environment Protection Act, 1986 expressly empowers the government “to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment”.

The Public Trust Doctrine

• The ‘Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain them for the reasonable use of the public.
• The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as ‘The Doctrine of Public Trust’, which was founded on the idea that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests, and the air were held by the government in trusteeship for the free and unrestricted use of the general public.
• The State is the ‘Trustee’ of all-natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, air, forests, and ecologically fragile lands. The State as ‘Trustee’ is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.
• These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. As rivers, forests, minerals, and other resources constitute a nation’s natural wealth, these resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nations in the best possible way.
• This is in the interest of the nation as well as in the interest of mankind. Thus, the Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The court also ruled that there is no justifiable reason to rule out the application of the Public Trust Doctrine to all ecosystems in India.