The Constitution of India is the fundamental law of the land—but it must be interpreted in light of modern challenges. Legal interpretation involves understanding not just what is written, but also what is implied, restricted, or affected by constitutional values.
The 10 most important doctrines of constitutional interpretation are as follows:
- Principle of Implied Power
- Principle of Incidental and Ancillary powers
- Principle of Implied prohibition
- Principle of Occupied Field
- Principle of Pith and Substance
- Principle of Colourable Legislation
- Principle of territorial Nexus
- Principle of Severability
- Principle of prospective Overruling
- Principle of Territorial Nexus
Principle of Implied Power
Although the Indian Constitution specifically lists a number of powers, it does not list them all. Implied powers are laws that are either incidental to or required for the exercise of authority; they are also considered to be constitutional. This theory, says that implied powers inevitably result from the general terms in which constitutional powers are conferred.
It is a well-established notion that anytime a constitution grants particular powers or imposes restrictions, it implicitly confers all necessary powers for their exercise or execution, which implies that these powers are also constitutional.
Principal of Incidental and Ancillary Powers
This principle is applied to matters relating to the Centre-State relationship in legislative authorities. It is quite similar to the principle of implicit powers. This principle asserts that whenever a power is granted by the constitution to either a union or a state, it is presumed that any additional powers closely related to it are also granted to them. The foundation of this theory is that the constitution, as the most supreme legislation, should construe its principle in the broadest sense.
Principle of Implied Prohibition
This principle is based on the maxim of “expression unius est exclusion alterius’ which states that express mention of one thing leds to the exclusion of other things. This principle is antithesis of principle of implied powers. The principle of implied prohibition simply indicates that the things which are not clearly mentioned are implied as prohibited.
Principle of Occupied Field
The occupied field principle applies to legislation enacted on a concurrent list in which both the state and the central government have the authority to pass laws. This theory holds that if the union or central government creates a law on a specific issue and so occupies the field, the state legislature has no authority to enact that law. If the state government make law, then the law will be termed as unconstitutional to the extent of repugnancy between state and center`s legislation.
Article 254 of the constitution of India deals with this principle and provides that Article 254 provides that in condition when the laws made by state legislature is repugnant to the laws made by parliament. The law made by parliament shall prevail over law made by state legislature and the repugnant provision will be held void.
But If the state reserved the act for the consideration of president and has received his assent, then the law made by state legislature shall prevail in that state.
Principle of Pith and Substance
The phrase “pith and substance” refers to the law’s true nature and character. This concept is taken from the Canadian Constitution. The doctrine of pith and substance states that if an enactment falls within the powers conferred by the constitution upon the legislature by which it was enacted, it does not become invalid merely because it incidentally touches upon subjects within the domain of another legislature as designated by the constitution.
To understand this doctrine we must understand Seventh schedule of the constitution which mentioned three lists
- Union List– In this list only central government has power to make laws.
- State List– In this list only state government has power to make laws.
- Concurrent List– In this list both central and state government has power to make laws.
This doctrine basically states that if the union makes a law that happens to fall on the state list, or if the state legislature makes a law that happens to fall on the Union list. Then, such an act does not become invalid simply because it happens to fall under the other category.
Case- State of Bombay vs F.N. Balsara (AIR 1951 SC 318)- In this case, the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 was made by the state legislature as part of the Entry of State list relating to intoxicating liquors, which includes the production, manufacturing, possession, transportation, procurement, and sale of such liquors. This legislation was challenged on the basis that it was enacted within the Union subject to entry 41 of the Union list related to ‘import and export across customs frontiers’. In this case, the court applied the doctrine of pith and substance and held that the act was legal.
Case- Bennett Coleman and Company vs Union of India(AIR 1973 SC 106)-In this case it was held that principle of pith and substance of the subject matter and of incidental effect of the legislature are relevant to questions of legislative competence but they are irrelavant to the question of infringement of fundamental rights
Principle of Colourable Legislation
The theory derives from the Latin maxim “quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum,” which states that what cannot be done directly should not be done indirectly either. This theory is applied when the legislature attempts to perform an act that is banned if done directly. The court, utilizing principle, can declare the act void.
Case- Jagannath Baksh singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh(AIR 1962 SC 1563)- In this case it was held that imposing tax is not confiscatory in nature thus it is not colourable.
Principle of Territorial Nexus
Principle of territorial nexus is based on Article 245 of Constitution of India. Article 245(1) provides that :-
- Parliament may make laws for whole or any part of territory of India.
- Legislature of state make laws for whole or any part of state.
Article 245(2) provides that any law made by state shall not be invalid on the ground of its extra territorial operation.
This principle provides that a state (or central government) can make laws even for people, property, or acts outside its territorial boundaries, if there is a sufficient connection (“nexus”) between the law and the territory of the state. Article 245(2) of the constitution led to emergence of this principle because it states that no law becomes invalid on ground of extra territorial operation. .
Case- State of Bombay vs R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala(AIR 1957 SC 599)- In this case two elements of doctrine of territorial nexus was given:
- The connection must be real and not illusory
- The liability which is sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection.
Principle of Severability
According to the doctrine of severability, if any section of the statute is inconsistent with Part III of the constitution, the unconstitutional element must be severed from the statute while the legitimate portion of the statute remains in effect. The basic principle behind the doctrine of severability is to keep the main act and remove the void piece from it. This doctrine is also known as doctrine of seperability.
Case- State of Bombay vs F.N. Balsara- In this case court while using doctrine of severability held that only the part of the statute which is void will be removed from the act and the remaining part of the statute will be considered as valid.
Principle of Prospective Overruling
The principle of prospective overruling was originated in the American judicial system. Judge Cardozo was the originator and propounder of propective overruling. This doctrine states that means that when a court (especially a Supreme Court) makes a new legal rule by overruling an earlier decision, the new rule will apply only to future cases, not to past cases. Supreme court in the case of I.C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab(AIR 1967 SC 1463) laid down the following propositions:
- This doctrine can be invoked in constitutional matters.
- This doctrine can be applied only by the Supreme court.
- It is upto the discretion of the court whether they want to give retrospective operation of law or not.
Case- Harsh Dhingra vs State of Haryana(AIR 2001 SC 3795)- In this case it was held that prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation.
Principle of Eclipse
Article 13 of the constitution of India led to the origin of this principle Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution states that all pre-constitutional law that is in conflict with the Indian Constitution will be void to the extent of such inconsistency, and Article 13(2) states that the state shall not make any law that deprives citizens of any right conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
This doctrine states that if a law violates fundamental rights, it does not die, it just become inactive later if the fundamental right is changed or the conflict is removed from the law then the eclipsed law becomes active again without need of a fresh law.
Case- Mahendr Lal Jaini vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1019)- In this case it was held that the principle of eclipse applied to pre constitution laws and not to the post constitution laws.
References:
- Interpretation of Statutes by Prof. T. Bhattacharya
- Interpretation of Statutes by V.S. Datey
