Judicial Doctrine – Principles of the Constitution

Judicial Doctrine-Principles of the Constitution

A doctrine is a belief, principle, or position, usually maintained by an authority such as a court. As far as the Indian judiciary is concerned, there are many teachings. Many of you may be familiar with basic structural theory. In this article, we will discuss all important Indian judicial doctrines.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The doctrine of basic structure is the judicial principle of India, that is, the Indian Constitution has certain basic characteristics that cannot be changed or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament.

However, the judiciary has not clearly defined what should be regarded as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It is generally believed that democracy, federalism, judicial independence, and secularism are some of the basic characteristics.

The circumstances under which the constitution claims to be a “basic” characteristic based on any particular characteristic of the constitution are determined by the court on a case-by-case basis.

This doctrine was first discussed in Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala (1973). Thanks to Kesavananda Bharati, Palkhivala and the majority of the seven judges, India remains the world’s largest democracy.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

The doctrine was created to achieve coordination between the different lists mentioned in Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution. Different themes are mentioned in the different lists of this schedule.

However, there may be cases where the entries of one list overlap with the entries of another list. This is when the doctrine appears.

It was said that the terminology should be broad and the court should maintain harmony between different terms and lists.

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine in the case of Tika Ramji v. UP.

Doctrine of Eclipse

The doctrine states that if any law conflicts with fundamental rights, it will not perish permanently, but become invalid.

Once this basic right is removed from the Constitution, the inactive law will be restored.

When the court violates part of the law, it becomes unenforceable. Therefore, it is said that “eclipse” should be added to it. The law is only invalid and continues to exist.

The eclipse will be deleted when another court (probably a higher court) makes the law effective again or amends it through legislation.

The Supreme Court first applied the doctrine in Bhikaji v. Madhya Pradesh State and applied it to pre-constitution laws. In Dulare Lodh v. ADJ Kanpur, the expansion of post-constitutional law was pointed out.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

If there is a conflict between different topics in different lists, the doctrine appears. There is an interpretation of Listing 1 and Listing 2 of the Indian Constitution.

There may be situations where the subject of one list meets the subject of another list. Therefore, the doctrine was applied later.

Essence and essence mean the true nature of the law.

It challenges real topics, not side effects on other topics.

This doctrine was also applied to India to provide some flexibility in the original strict power distribution plan.

The reason for adopting this doctrine is that the power of the legislature is greatly limited if all legislation is declared invalid for violating power.

The Supreme Court has addressed this requirement in Mumbai v. Applied to F.N Balasar.

Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers

This means that the subject’s legislative powers also include the power to legislate auxiliary matters reasonably related to the subject.

For example, the power to collect taxes includes search and seizure rights to prevent tax evasion. However, it is not possible to extend power related to banking to non-banking power.

However, if the subject is explicitly mentioned in the state or federal list, it cannot be said to be a secondary subject. For example, rights to taxes are mentioned in certain items on the list, so we cannot claim that the rights to taxes are assistants of rights related to other items on the list.

Rajasthan v. In the case of G Chawla AIR 1959, it can be said that legislative powers on the subject include legislative powers on subsidiary matters, and that powers are reasonably included in the subject.

However, this does not mean that the scope of power can be expanded to an unreasonable extent. The Supreme Court has always warned of expanding the scope of construction. For example, RMD Charbaugwala of AIR in 1962, in a 1962 lawsuit against Mysore, SC determined that games and gambling were the entities mentioned in Article 34 of the State List, but did not include the authority to tax games and gambling. It exists as a game industry. Separate item in the same list as item 62.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

This provision will apply when the legislature that promulgates the law violates the power stipulated in the Constitution.

The term “nonferrous law” only means things that cannot be done directly or indirectly.

Matter is substance, not appearance.

Therefore, in some cases, it seems to be within the power of the legislature, but it is actually illegal. This is when the doctrine appears.

The Supreme Court of India applied the judgment in Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh State and ruled that the Bihar Land Reform Law was invalid.

Doctrine of Severability

According to this principle, if there are any illegal parts in the regulations, only the illegal parts will be declared invalid, not the entire regulations.

Article 13 states that the invalid part should be deleted, not the entire invalid part. The valid part can be retained.

However, it should be remembered that even after separation; the rest should not become ambiguous.

If the rest becomes ambiguous, the entire regulation will be declared invalid and useless.

The Supreme Court pointed out in the RMDC and UOI cases that the principle of severability is a matter of substance, not a matter of form.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

Article 245 stipulates that the state government may formulate laws on the state territory, and in the case of a link or connection between extraterritorial laws and legislative objects, it cannot make laws based on extraterritorial laws.

Article 245, paragraph 1, provides that the Indian Parliament may enact laws throughout India or any territory.

Similarly, the state legislature can do the same.

According to Article 245(2), these laws cannot be declared invalid because they have extraterritorial effects.

In order to determine whether a particular legislation is within the territorial relationship, the doctrine is applied.

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine in the cases of Tata Iron Steel and Bihar.

Doctrine of Laches

Laches means delay.

The bourgeois doctrine is based on the maxim: “Equality helps vigilance, not those who defend their rights.” (Black Law Dictionary).As a result, if claims or claims take too long to damage the parties, legal rights or claims will not be enforced or disallowed.The elements of the la lock include an understanding of the claim, unreasonable delays, negligence, and together they hurt the opponent.As we all know, people who want to remedy must appear in court within a reasonable time.

The passage of time violates justice and violates the concept of justice.Therefore, a question arises as to whether the delay can be the basis for the deprivation of the basic rights provided for in article 32.Some people say that it is unreasonable to refuse basic rights only on the grounds of delay, because basic rights are fundamental to the development of individuals and are also very important.

Author: Anubhuti Agrawal,
Jagran Lakecity University,Bhopal

Leave a Comment