{"id":105353,"date":"2026-05-27T15:08:30","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T09:38:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=105353"},"modified":"2026-05-27T15:08:30","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T09:38:30","slug":"doctrine-of-colourable-legislation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/doctrine-of-colourable-legislation\/","title":{"rendered":"Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, Definition, Article 246, Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is a principle in constitutional law which means that <\/span><b>what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> In simple terms, it ensures that the legislature does not <\/span><b>misuse its powers by passing a law that appears valid on the surface but actually goes beyond its authority.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The doctrine helps maintain the balance of power by preventing hidden or disguised violations of constitutional limits.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b>About Doctrine of Colourable Legislation<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on a Latin maxim<\/span><b><i> \u201cquando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum\u201d<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which simply means that <\/span><b>if something is prohibited directly, it cannot be done indirectly as well.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This forms the basic idea behind the doctrine.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This principle was not originally Indian; it was introduced during <\/span><b>British rule.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The British borrowed it from legal systems in countries like <\/span><b>Canada and Australia<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and applied it in India.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After independence, the doctrine continued to exist and became an<\/span><b> important part of constitutional law in India.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Over time, the judiciary has further developed and clarified this doctrine through various landmark judgments.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In simple terms, the doctrine is used to <\/span><b>prevent misuse or abuse of legislative power by the government.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It ensures that authorities do not cross the limits set by the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The word<\/span><b><i> \u201ccolourable\u201d<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> refers to something that <\/span><b>appears to be genuine, valid, or lawful on the surface but is actually deceptive or not legally correct.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Therefore, colourable legislation refers to a situation where the government <\/span><b>pretends to act within its legal powers,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> but in reality, it is making a law outside its authority.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine makes it clear that the legislature <\/span><b>cannot achieve indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> even if the law appears valid in form.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing this doctrine. If a law is found to be beyond the powers granted to the legislature, the courts have the authority to <\/span><b>review such laws and declare them unconstitutional.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Because such laws are essentially attempts to bypass constitutional limits, the doctrine is often referred to as <\/span><b>\u201cFraud on the Constitution.\u201d<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This means the legislature creates an illusion of legality while actually violating constitutional provisions.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court, in the case of <\/span><b><i>R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977)<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, clarified that expressions like <\/span><b>colourable exercise of power, fraud on legislative power, and fraud on the Constitution all convey the same idea<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> that the legislature does not have the competence to enact that law.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">An important point under this doctrine is that the <\/span><b>motive or intention of the legislature is not considered relevant by the courts.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Instead, the courts focus only on one key question: <\/span><b>whether the legislature had the legal authority (competence) to make that law or not.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> If it lacks such authority, the law will be invalid, regardless of the intention behind it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Doctrine of Colourable Legislation <\/b><b>Evolution in India<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine of colourable legislation was<\/span><b> introduced in India during British rule.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Initially, the <\/span><b>British followed a unitary system of government,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> where most <\/span><b>powers were concentrated at the centre.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Over time, they shifted towards a <\/span><b>federal system,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> where powers were divided between the <\/span><b>central authority and provincial governments.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This division made it necessary to clearly define the limits of each authority.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this context, the doctrine of colourable legislation was used as a <\/span><b>tool to check whether a government body was acting within its legal powers.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It helped in maintaining a balance of power between different levels of government.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The British did not create this doctrine themselves; instead, they <\/span><b>adopted it from other federal countries like Canada and Australia, <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">where similar issues of power distribution already existed.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Position in India after Independence<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After India gained independence in 1947, the doctrine of colourable legislation continued to remain relevant under the Constitution of India, 1950.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">India also adopted a federal structure with a clear <\/span><b>distribution of powers between the Union and the States<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (through Union List, State List, and Concurrent List).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With such a system, the possibility of overlapping or misuse of legislative powers still existed, making this doctrine important.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Indian judiciary has played a major role in <\/span><b>developing and strengthening this doctrine through various judgments.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Today, the doctrine acts as an important constitutional safeguard, ensuring that no legislative authority misuses its power or tries to bypass constitutional limitations indirectly.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Article 246 of the Indian Constitution<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is not directly mentioned in the <\/span><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\">Indian Constitution<\/a><\/strong><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. However, its idea is indirectly supported through provisions like <\/span><b>Article 246 and Article 246A,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> which define the limits of legislative powers.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Article 246<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is very important because it explains the<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/federalism-in-indian-polity\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>federal structure of India<\/b><\/a> <span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">and clearly <\/span><b>divides law-making powers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> between the Centre and the States.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This Article ensures that <\/span><b>each level of government acts within its own jurisdiction,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and if it goes beyond that, <\/span><b>the judiciary can declare such laws unconstitutional.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To make this division clear, the Constitution includes the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/7th-schedule-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Seventh Schedule<\/b><\/a><b>,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> which separates subjects into three different lists.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Key Provisions of Article 246<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Clause (1):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Gives <\/span><b>exclusive power to <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/structure-of-the-indian-parliament\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Parliament<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to make laws on subjects mentioned in the<\/span><b> Union List,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> even if there is any conflict with other clauses.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Clause (2):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Allows both <\/span><b>Parliament and State Legislatures<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to make laws on subjects in the <\/span><b>Concurrent List,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> but Parliament\u2019s power has priority.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Clause (3):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Gives <\/span><b>exclusive power to <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/state-government\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>State Legislatures<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to make laws on subjects in the <\/span><b>State List,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> but this is subject to clauses (1) and (2).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Clause (4):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Grants <\/span><b>Parliament<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> the power to <\/span><b>legislate for Union Territories<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> or areas not included in any state, even on matters in the State List.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Distribution of Subjects under Seventh Schedule<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The legislative powers are divided into three lists to avoid conflicts and overlapping of authority:<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Union List (List I):<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Contains subjects of <\/span><b>national importance<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> such as defence, foreign affairs, <\/span><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/banking-system-in-india\/\" target=\"_blank\">banking<\/a><\/strong><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Only Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on these subjects.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>State List (List II):<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Includes subjects related to <\/span><b>local or state-level importance<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> like police, public health, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/agriculture-in-india\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><strong>agriculture<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Only State Legislatures have exclusive power to make laws on these matters.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Concurrent List (List III):<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Covers subjects like education, forests, trade unions, etc., where both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In case of conflict, central law prevails.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Article 246A of the Indian Constitution\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Insertion and Background<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 246A was introduced by the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/101st-constitutional-amendment-act\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>101st Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><\/a><b>, 2016.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It marked a major shift in India\u2019s indirect taxation system, paving the way for GST.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Link with GST System<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This Article provides the constitutional basis for the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/goods-and-services-tax\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Goods and Services Tax<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (GST).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">GST replaced multiple taxes like VAT, excise duty, service tax, etc., creating a unified tax structure.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Special Provision (Overriding Effect)<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Article 246A<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> begins with a<\/span><b> \u201cnon-obstante clause\u201d<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, meaning it overrides <\/span><b>Articles 246 and 254.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This gives it special importance in matters related to GST.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Concurrent Power of Centre and States<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Both Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to make laws on GST.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is a unique feature as taxation powers were earlier clearly divided.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Dual GST Model: <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Article enables a dual taxation system:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li><b>CGST &#8211;<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> levied by the Centre<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>SGST &#8211;<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> levied by the States<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This ensures shared revenue between Centre and States.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Exclusive Power of Parliament (Inter-State Trade)<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Parliament has exclusive authority to make laws for GST on inter-state supply of goods and services.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This tax is known as IGST, ensuring smooth interstate trade.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Role of <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/gst-council\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>GST Council<\/b><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Implementation depends on recommendations of the GST Council under Article <\/span><b>279A.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Council promotes cooperation and coordination between Centre and States.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Objective of Article 246A<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To create a simplified and transparent tax system.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To remove the cascading effect (tax on tax).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To promote the idea of <\/span><b>\u201cOne Nation, One Tax\u201d.<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Doctrine of Colourable Legislation <\/b><b>Limitations<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Although the doctrine of colourable legislation is an important safeguard against misuse of power, it is not without limitations. Its application is restricted in certain situations.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Subordinate (Delegated) Legislation<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Subordinate or delegated legislation refers to <\/span><b>laws made by authorities other than the legislature,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> but under powers given by a parent or primary law.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Such laws are generally presumed to be valid and constitutional, because <\/span><b>they are made under the authority of an already valid law.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This creates a limitation for the doctrine, as courts usually start with the <\/span><b>assumption that such laws are legal.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>burden<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of proof lies on the <\/span><b>person challenging the law,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> who must clearly show that the law violates constitutional limits.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court in <\/span><b><i>Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958)<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> held that <\/span><b>there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">and the person challenging the law must prove otherwise.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This principle was again confirmed in <\/span><b><i>Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi (1959)<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, reinforcing that courts do not easily invalidate such laws.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Motives or Intentions are Not Considered<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Another limitation is that the doctrine <\/span><b>does not consider the intention or motive behind the law.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The courts only check whether the legislature had the <\/span><b>legal authority (competence) to make the law,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> not whether the intention was good or bad.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This means that even if a law is made with good intentions and could benefit the public, it can still be <\/span><b>struck down if it is outside the legislature\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In <\/span><b><i>K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1954),<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Justice B.K. Mukherjea clarified that the doctrine is concerned with legislative competence, not the honesty or motive of the legislature.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The focus is on whether the law is actually within the permitted powers or just appears to be so as a disguise.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Applicable Only When There is a Constitutional Limitation<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine applies only in situations where the legislature crosses the limits set by the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If there is no constitutional restriction on a particular subject, then the doctrine cannot be used.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In other words, where the legislature has full and unrestricted power, the doctrine of colourable legislation becomes irrelevant.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Therefore, its application is limited to cases where there is a clear division of powers or constitutional boundary that has been violated.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Doctrine of Colourable Legislation <\/b><b>Landmark Cases<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh (1952)<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court held that the entire <\/span><b>Bihar Land Reforms Act could not be declared invalid.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> However, certain provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act were struck down as unconstitutional for violating constitutional requirements like adequate compensation. The rest of the Act was upheld as valid, and similar laws from Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were also held constitutional.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962)<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court ruled that the reservation order i.e. excessive reservation 68% was unconstitutional as it exceeded reasonable limits and <\/span><b>misused the power under Article 15(4).<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court held that <\/span><b>reservation should not go beyond 50%<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and declared the order as a fraud on constitutional powers.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023)<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the state amendment laws related to Jallikattu and similar practices. It ruled that <\/span><b>these laws were not colourable legislation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and were within the legislative competence of the states under the Concurrent List. The Court also observed that the amendments aimed to reduce cruelty and were constitutionally valid.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Doctrine of Colourable Legislation Significance<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The doctrine of colourable legislation plays an important role in <\/span><b>preventing misuse of legislative power.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It allows the judiciary to step in whenever a law appears valid but is actually beyond the authority of the legislature.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With the help of this doctrine, the <\/span><b>judiciary maintains balance among different organs of government.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It ensures that no authority tries to become more powerful than it is constitutionally allowed to be.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This doctrine gives the courts the <\/span><b>power to examine whether a law has been made within the proper jurisdiction of the legislature.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> If a law is found to be outside its authority, the judiciary can declare it unconstitutional and strike it down.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also helps in <\/span><b>protecting the principle of <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/separation-of-powers\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>separation of powers<\/b><\/a><b>. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If the legislature becomes too dominant and starts interfering in areas beyond its control, it <\/span><b>can disturb the balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">By acting as a check on such behaviour, the doctrine prevents concentration and abuse of power in the hands of a single organ of government.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The existence of this doctrine encourages the <\/span><b>legislature to be more careful and responsible while making laws,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> ensuring that they stay within constitutional limits.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also plays a role in strengthening democracy, as it <\/span><b>reminds the government that its powers are limited<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and must be exercised according to the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ultimately, the doctrine helps in <\/span><b>protecting the interests of the people,<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> ensuring that laws reflect constitutional values and the true spirit of governance rather than hidden or indirect misuse of authority.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Doctrine of Colourable Legislation prevents legislatures from indirectly doing what the Constitution prohibits directly, protecting constitutional limits and powers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":105250,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[786],"tags":[7770,5107,5108],"class_list":{"0":"post-105353","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-general-studies","8":"tag-doctrine-of-colourable-legislation","9":"tag-indian-polity","10":"tag-indian-polity-notes","11":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105353"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105353\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":105391,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105353\/revisions\/105391"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/105250"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}