Q. Consider the following statements in the context of Doctrine of Colourable Legislation:
1. It holds that the union and state legislatures should not encroach upon each other’s domain.
2. The courts will look into the object of the law and not motives of the legislatures while deciding on its validity.
3. State legislature is barred from re-enacting the same law if the statute is found to be invalid due to legislative incompetence.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Exp) Option a is the correct answer
Statement 1 is incorrect. The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the maxim that what one cannot do directly, that cannot be done indirectly. It is applied when the state legislatures have transgressed their power as mentioned in the Constitution while enacting a law. It is also characterized as a fraud on the Constitution because no legislature can violate the Constitution by employing an indirect method. The doctrine of Pith and Substance holds that the union and state legislatures should not encroach upon each other’s domain.
Statement 2 is correct. 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. 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. It is the substance of the Act that is material and not merely the form or outward appearance.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Further, if a statute is found to be invalid on the ground of legislative incompetence, it does not permanently inhibit the legislature from reenacting the same if the power to do so is properly traced and established. In such a situation, it cannot be said that subsequent legislation is merely a colourable legislation or a camouflage to re-enact the invalidated previous legislation.
