The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation prevents lawmakers from bypassing constitutional limits by disguising a law’s real objective, ensuring legislative honesty and accountability.
📚 Introduction
In a democracy, laws must be made for legitimate purposes, and within the powers granted by the Constitution. But what if a legislature pretends to make a law on one subject, while actually aiming to control something it has no authority over?
That’s where the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation comes into play. It says:
“What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.”
This doctrine stops lawmakers from doing indirectly what they are not constitutionally allowed to do directly.
🧠 What Is Colourable Legislation?
The term “colourable” doesn’t mean anything colorful—it means “pretend” or “disguised.”
So, a colourable legislation is a law that claims to be about one subject, but is actually made for another (unauthorized) purpose.
⚖️ Origin of the Doctrine
The doctrine is based on the principle of separation of powers and constitutional limitations.
Every legislature in India—whether it’s Parliament or a State Assembly—can only make laws on subjects assigned to it under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
If a law crosses that line, even in disguise, it is invalid.
📘 Landmark Case: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953)
-
The Orissa legislature passed a law aiming to abolish zamindari rights.
-
A zamindar challenged it, claiming that the law targeted him personally, which the State had no power to do.
-
The Supreme Court held that the law was not colourable, because the real object—land reform—was within the State’s power.
However, this case clarified what would count as colourable legislation:
-
When form and label of the law suggest one thing,
-
But substance and reality show something else.
📘 Another Example: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952)
-
A Bihar law took over large estates without fair compensation.
-
It claimed to be about land reform, but actually targeted specific individuals unfairly.
-
The Court found this to be colourable legislation and struck it down.
✅ Key Elements of the Doctrine
-
Focuses on the true substance of the law—not just its wording
-
Checks if the law masks its real intention
-
Prevents legislative fraud or evasion
-
Applies only when a legislature is exceeding its powers, not to policy decisions
🧾 How Courts Apply the Doctrine
-
Examine the subject matter and objective of the law
-
Check if the legislature had competence to make the law
-
Identify whether the law’s true effect intrudes into another’s domain
If the answer reveals dishonest or hidden intent, the law is struck down.
❌ What It’s Not
-
It’s not about how fair or useful a law is
-
It’s about legislative competence and genuineness of intent
-
A bad policy isn’t colourable—a dishonest one is
🧩 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is like a lie detector for laws. It ensures that every law passed by a legislature is genuine, honest, and within its constitutional boundaries.
It reminds lawmakers that the Constitution doesn’t just care about what you say—but what you’re really trying to do.