Doctrine of colourable

legislation
• discourages the misuse of the legislative authority of the government
by judicial intervention to maintain the balance of power in the
country
• a legal principle that aims at the prevention of excessive and
unconstitutional use of the legislative authority of the government.
• “quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”
• literal sense- the doctrine of colourable legislation means that the
government is enacting a legislation under the guise of having
authority even though it does not possess any competent authority to
do so.
• “Fraud on the Constitution”
• The judiciary, while determining whether a law is a colourable
legislation, does not take into account the intentions of the
legislature; it only considers whether the particular legislation is
within the jurisdiction of the government authority or not.
Limitations
• Subordinate legislation
• Intentions or motives
• Applies only within Constitutional limit
State of Bihar V. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh
1952 1 SCR 889
• On 30 December, 1949 the Bihar Land Reforms Bill was introduced in
the Legislative Assembly of Bihar and passed by both the Houses. It
received the President’s assent on 11 September, 1950.
• On 25 September, 1950 a notification u/s 3 of the Act was published
stating that land belonging to the respondent and two others had
been vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act.
• The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of
Patna requesting to declare the Act as unconstitutional and issue the
writ of mandamus on the State of Bihar.
• The High Court declared the Act as unconstitutional and violative of
Article 14, which was appealed against in the Supreme Court.
 • Entry 36 List II- Acquisition and Requisition of property, except for the
purpose of the Union, subject to the provision of entry 42 List III.
• Entry 42 List III- Principles on which compensation for property acquired or
requisitioned for the purpose of the Union or of a state or for any public
purpose …and the manner and form in which compensation to be given.
• Bihar Land Reforms Act provided compensation to be calculated on net
income, where net income= Gross income- Certain deductions
• The Act provided under Ss. 4(b) and 23 (1) (f) that the deductions shall be as
follows-
• 50% of the arrears of rent +
• Cess or royalty due to the estate before vesting shall be recoverable from the Zamindar
after the acquisition +
• 12.5% of the gross assets as the cost of work on the riyayat

• Issues-
• Whether the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the legislation or
exercising colourable legislation?
 Decision
• The Supreme Court Bench comprising CJ Patanjali Shastri, Justices M.C.
Mahajan, Mukherjea, Das and C. Aiyar held:
• that some provisions of the Act may be harsh and bad against the Zamindars but that
does not render the whole Act a fraud on the Constitution.
• On the above observation they held that Sections 4(b) and 23(1)(f) are colorable exercise
of legislative power under entry 42 List III and therefore, unconstitutional but the rest of
the Act is valid. Also, a writ of Mandamus was issued to the State of Bihar to not give
effect to the said provisions.
• S. 23(1)(f) where it says that 12.5% of the gross asset (at a flat rate without reference to
actual expenses that might have been incurred can be deducted as representing “cost of
works for the benefit of the riyayat” is an obvious device to reduce the Gross income and
thus, the net income
• The Court explicitly said that the Bihar Legislature was competent to enact the legislation
and the Act did not contravene Article 31(4) of the Constitution. Also, the acquisition of
the lands was for public purpose and the subject matter of the Act fell under the ambit of
Article 31(4).
 K.C. Gajapati v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 Ori 185
• Facts- The petitioners were the estate owners in Orissa. The Orissa State Legislature enacted
the “Orissa State Estates Abolition Act, 1952” whose primary purpose was to abolish all
Zamindari and other proprietary estates and interests in the State of Orissa and after
eliminating all the intermediaries, associating the occupants of lands in contact with the
State Government.
• Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1952 provided that compensation as per power given under
Entry 42 List III, shall be calculated on the basis of net income, where net income= Gross
income- Certain deductions (including agricultural income tax of the previous year)
• Entry 42 List III- Principles on which compensation for property acquired or requisitioned for
the purpose of the Union or of a state or for any public purpose …and the manner and form
in which compensation to be given.
• Now, the state also passed the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act 1947 and by amendment in
1950 the agricultural income tax was doubled.
• As a result of it the ripple effect of that fell on the calculation of net income u/ Orissa Estates
Abolition Act of 1952 .
• Aggrieved by the provisions of legislation enacted, the proprietors of the estates filed Six
appeals before the High Court of Orissa invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The petition was filed for challenging the constitutional validity of the Orissa Estates
Abolition Act of 1952 as a whole. However, the matter was dismissed by the learned bench
of the Orissa High Court.
• Issue-
• Is the provision of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950, valid concerning the
determination of compensation payable under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1952 ?

• Decision-
• The doctrine of colorable legislation depends upon the competency of the legislature to enact
that law, the procedure followed and not merely on the motive of the body in passing such law.
The maxim asserts, “You cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.”
• The legislature was competent to make laws on the subject and also the ulterior motive for laying
the Act was not beyond the competency of the State Legislature. Thus, the Orissa Agricultural
Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1950 Act cannot render the law as colorable and was not void.
• The State Legislature is empowered u/a 31(2) of the Constitution to place buildings which are
within the ambit of the estate for management or administration purpose in the Government.
• The provisions mentioned in Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1950 for determination of
compensation is not a colorable legislation as it comes within the ambit of Entry 42 of List III of
Schedule VII of Constitution.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of both the sides and discussing the
constitutional questions at length dismissed all six appeals, directing the parties to bear their
respective costs .
Principles Evolved
1.Colourability is bound with incompetency and not with any evil and bad
motive, if the legislature has the power to make the laws, then the motive
in making the law is irrelevant. (Nageshwar v. A.P.S.R.T Corp.) AIR 1953 SC
308

2.If something is colourable in appearance only but not in reality then the
court looks into the true nature of the legislation and in that case it focuses
on the object as the purpose is relevant and not the motive. (Jalan Trading
Vs. Mill Mazdoor Sabha)
3.The expediency, necessity and propriety of a legislation act are for the
determination of the legislative authority not for the determination by the
courts. (T. Venkaia Reddy v. State of A.P.) AIR 1985 SC

4.There cannot be expected to be exercise of coulourable legislation in case