JUDICIAL DOCTRINE-under the Indian Constitution

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation: 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. 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”.

It was applied by the Supreme Court of India in the case State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh and it was held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was invalid.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure: The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.

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 a case-by-case basis.

Some of the features of the Constitution termed as "basic" are listed below:

Supremacy of the Constitution

Rule of law

The principle of Separation of Powers

The objectives specified in the Preamble to the Constitution

Judicial Review

Articles 32 and 226

Federalism (including financial liberty of states under Articles 282 and 293)

Secularism

The Sovereign, Democratic, Republican structure

Freedom and dignity of the individual

Unity and integrity of the Nation

The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

The Parliamentary system of government

The principle of free and fair elections

Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368

Independence of the Judiciary

Effective access to justice

Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142

Welfare state

This doctrine was first expressed in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973).

Doctrine of Harmonious ConstructionThis doctrine was brought about to bring harmony between the different lists mentioned in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Different subjects are mentioned in different lists in this schedule. However, there can be a situation where an entry of one list overlaps with that of another list. This is the time when this doctrine comes into the picture. 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.

Supreme Court applied this Doctrine in the case of Tika Ramji vs the State of UP.

Doctrine of Eclipse: The doctrine states that if any law becomes contradictory to the fundamental rights, then it does not permanently die but becomes inactive. As soon as that fundamental right is omitted from the Constitution, the inactive law becomes revived. 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.