DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATION

 The Constitution distributes the legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislature, and, they are required to act within their respective spheres 

Often the question arises as to whether or not the legislature enacting the law has transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers.

Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguised, covert and indirect.

The doctrine of colourable legislation is applied when the transgression is disguised, covert and indirect.

As per the doctrine of “occupied field” enshrined in Article 254(1) of the Constitution, if there exists a Central law on a concurrent subject, then a State law cannot override it.

Article 254(2) provides that if a State law receives presidential assent after due consideration, then it can apply in contravention to the Central law in that particular State

Article 254(2) was intended to bring in changes to Central laws if there was a genuine hurdle in implementing them in a particular State. 

Supreme Court  to strike down the attempts of the government to pass off laws the government is not qualified to pass, disguised as other laws 

The doctrine is also not applicable to Subordinate Legislation.

The colourable legislation simply means a legislation which, while transgressing constitutional limitation, is made to appear as if it were quite constitutional. 

If the law enacted by the legislature is found in substance and in reality beyond the competence of the legislature enacting it, it will be ultra vires and void, even though it apparently purports to be within the competence of the legislature enacting it 

This doctrine is based on the maxim that what one cannot do directly, that cannot be done indirectly. 

It is also characterized as a fraud on the Constitution because no legislature can violate the Constitution by employing an indirect method (K.C.G Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375).

Colourability is thus bound up with incompetency and not tainted with bad faith or evil motive. If the legislature has power to make law, motive in making the law is irrelevant (Nageshwar v. A.P.S.R.T. Corpn. AIR 1959 SC 316).

The court will look into the true nature and character of the legislation and for that its object, purpose or design to make law on a subject is relevant and not its motive (Jalan Trading v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1967 SC 691).

The propriety, expediency and necessity of a legislative act are for the determination of the legislative authority and are not for determination by courts (T. Venkaia Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1985 SC 724).

if a statute is found to be invalid on the ground of legislative incompetence, it does not permanently inhibit the legislature from re-enacting the same if the power to do so is properly traced and established.

The doctrine has reference to the competence and not to the motives, bona fides or mala fides of the legislature.

The doctrine has reference to the competence and not to the motives, bona fides or mala fides of the legislature.

S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana (AIR 1997 SC 3127), the apex court held: Colourable legislation is one where the legislature has no power to legislate on an item either because of its non-inclusion in the lists in Seventh Schedule, or on account of limits in view of the fundamental rights or any other constitutional power or in violation of principle of basic structure of the Constitution.