Indian judicial doctrines form the backbone of constitutional interpretation and governance in India, serving as guiding principles that courts use to maintain constitutional order and protect fundamental rights. These doctrines, developed through landmark judicial pronouncements, ensure that the Constitution remains a living document while safeguarding its core principles and values.
Doctrine of Basic Structure
The doctrine emerged from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where the Supreme Court in a 7-6 verdict held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution.
Key Elements of Basic Structure
While the Supreme Court has not explicitly defined what constitutes the basic structure, several elements have been identified through various judgments:
-
Supremacy of the Constitution
-
Rule of law and judicial review
-
Separation of powers
-
Federalism
-
Secularism
-
Independence of judiciary
-
Democratic and republican nature of polity
-
Unity and integrity of the nation
-
Fundamental rights and their essence
-
Parliamentary system
The claim of any particular feature to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court on a case-by-case basis.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
This doctrine addresses conflicts between different legislative lists mentioned in Schedule 7 of the Constitution. When entries from different lists overlap, courts apply this doctrine to bring harmony between the conflicting provisions by giving wide amplitude to the words of the entries.
The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Tika Ramji vs State of UP, establishing that courts should interpret constitutional provisions in a manner that avoids conflict and promotes constitutional harmony.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse provides that when a law becomes contradictory to fundamental rights, it does not permanently die but becomes inactive. The law remains dormant until either the conflicting fundamental right is removed from the Constitution or a higher court validates the law through reinterpretation.
This doctrine was first applied to pre-constitutional laws and later extended to post-constitutional laws in cases like Bhikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The concept ensures that laws are not permanently destroyed but can be revived when constitutional circumstances change.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
This doctrine comes into play when there are conflicts between subjects in different constitutional lists. Pith and Substance means the true nature of law - courts examine the real subject matter of legislation rather than its incidental effects on other fields.
The doctrine provides flexibility in the otherwise rigid scheme of distribution of powers between Union and State governments. It was applied by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs F.N Balasar, ensuring that legislation is not declared invalid merely because it incidentally touches upon subjects in other lists.
Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers
As an addition to the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, this principle establishes that the power to legislate on a subject includes the power to legislate on ancillary matters reasonably connected to that subject. For example, the power to impose tax includes the power of search and seizure to prevent tax evasion.
However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against unreasonable extension of this doctrine. In R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore (1962), the Court held that betting and gambling being a state subject does not include power to impose taxes on them, as taxation exists as a separate entry in the same list.
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
This doctrine applies when a legislature transgresses its constitutional power by attempting to achieve indirectly what it cannot do directly. The principle states that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly".
Courts examine the substance rather than the outward appearance of legislation. The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh, declaring the Bihar Land Reforms Act invalid for transgressing constitutional boundaries.
Doctrine of Severability
According to this doctrine, when there is an offending part in a statute, only the invalid portion should be struck down, not the entire statute. Article 13 of the Constitution supports this approach by stating that only the invalid portion should be removed while preserving the valid parts.
The Supreme Court in RMDC vs UOI emphasized that the doctrine of severability is a matter of substance, not form. However, if the remaining part becomes ambiguous after separation, the entire statute may be declared void.
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
Based on Article 245 of the Constitution, this doctrine determines the territorial scope of legislative power. While Parliament can make laws for the whole territory of India, state legislatures can make laws for their territories and extraterritorial laws provided there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object of legislation.
The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Tata Iron Steel vs State of Bihar to determine whether particular legislation falls within territorial nexus.
Doctrine of Laches
The Doctrine of Laches is based on the legal maxim that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights". It prevents the enforcement of legal rights or claims when there has been unreasonable delay that prejudices the adverse party.
In Ravindra Jain vs UOI, the Supreme Court stated that remedy under Article 32 can be denied on grounds of unreasonable delay, though it emphasized that fundamental rights cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay.
Additional Important Doctrines
Doctrine of Judicial Review
Judicial review is a vital power granted to the Supreme Court and High Courts, allowing them to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The Constitution explicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246.
Since the Kesavananda Bharati case, courts can invalidate constitutional amendments that infringe on the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine serves as a crucial check on legislative and executive powers, ensuring constitutional supremacy.
Doctrine of Due Process of Law
While not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, the concept of due process has been read into Article 21 through judicial interpretation. The landmark Maneka Gandhi case established that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable.
The doctrine ensures that any deprivation of life and personal liberty must follow fair procedures that respect individual rights and constitutional principles.
Doctrine of Constitutional Morality
Constitutional Morality refers to adherence to fundamental constitutional principles and values. It involves supporting an inclusive and democratic political process that balances individual and collective interests.
The concept encompasses broader virtues such as fostering a diverse and inclusive society while upholding constitutional principles like democracy, socialism, equality, and integrity. It ensures that government actions conform to constitutional norms and avoid arbitrary behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment