i) Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

 About:

o It says that laws made by a State Legislature are not applicable outside

the state, except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the
object.
 Constitutional Provisions:

o The doctrine derives its power from Article 245 of the Indian

Constitution.

 Article 245 (2) provides that no law made by the Parliament would
be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation i.e.
takes effect outside the territory of India.
 Important Judgements:

o In A.H. Wadia v. Income Tax Commissioner (1948), it was held that a

question of extraterritoriality of enactment can never be raised against a Supreme
Legislative Authority on the grounds of questioning its validity.
o In the State of Bombay vs RMDC (1952), the SC held that there existed
a sufficient Territorial Nexus to enable the Bombay Legislature to tax the
respondent as all the activities which the competitor is ordinarily expected to
undertake took place mostly within Bombay.

ii) Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

 About:

o The term harmonious construction refers to such construction by which

harmony or oneness amongst various provisions of an enactment is arrived at.
o When the words of statutory provision bear more than one meaning and
there is a doubt as to which meaning should prevail, their interpretation should be
in a way that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant or nullified.
 Origin:

o The Doctrine of Harmonious construction originated through interpretations

given by courts in a number of cases.

 The evolution of the doctrine can be traced back to the very first
amendment made in the Constitution of India with the landmark judgment
of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India.
 Principles of rule of Harmonious construction:
 o In the landmark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) the
supreme court laid down five principles of rule of harmonious construction:

 The courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting

provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions.
 The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision
contained in another unless the court, despite all its efforts, is unable to find a
way to reconcile their differences
 When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a way so that
effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.
 Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one
provision to useless number or death is not harmonious construction.
 To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render
it fruitless.
 Important Judgements:

o In the Re-Kerala education bill 1951 case it was held that in deciding

the fundamental rights the court must consider the directive principle and adopt the
principle of harmonious construction. So, two possibilities are given effect as much
as possible by striking a balance.
o In East India hotels ltd. V. Union of India (2001) case, it was held
that an Act is to be read as a whole, the different provisions have to be harmonized
and the effect to be given to all of them.

iii) Doctrine of Pith and Substance

 About:

o Pith means ‘true nature’ and Substance means ‘the most important or

essential part of something’.
 Origin:

o The doctrine was first acknowledged in the Canadian Constitution and

In India, it came to be adopted in the pre-independence period, under
the Government of India Act, 1935.
 Applicability:

o The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is usually applied where

the question arises of determining whether a particular law relates to a
particular subject (mentioned in Seventh Schedule), the court looks to the
substance of the matter.
o Apart from its applicability in cases related to the competency of the
legislature (Article 246), the Doctrine of Pith and Substance is also applied
in cases related to repugnancy in laws made by Parliament and laws made by
 the State Legislatures (Article 254).

 The doctrine is employed in such cases to resolve the inconsistency

between laws made by the Centre and the State Legislature.
 Important Judgement:

o In Prafulla v. Bank of Commerce (1946), the SC held that a State law,

dealing with money lending (a State subject), is not invalid, merely because it
incidentally affects promissory notes.

iv) Meaning of doctrine of repugnancy

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution establishes the doctrine of repugnancy in India. Before getting to
this doctrine, it is quintessential to understand the legislative scheme and the Centre-State relations
set out by the Constitution. ` 

Article 245 empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India and the State
legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State. It also states that a law made by the
Parliament shall not be deemed invalid due to its extraterritorial application. Further, Article
246 provides the subject-matter of laws that can be made by the Parliament and Legislature of the
States. 

 The Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws for all matters given in the Union List or
List I of the Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
 The Legislature of the State has powers to make laws for such State for all matters given in
the State List or List II of Schedule VII.
 Both the Parliament and the State Legislature have powers to make laws for all matters listed
in the Concurrent List or List III of the Seventh Schedule.
 The Parliament is empowered to make laws relating to any matter for any part of the territory
of India, not included in a State, notwithstanding if it is enumerated in the State List.
Repugnancy means a contradiction between two laws which when applied to the same set of facts
produce different results. It is used to describe inconsistency and incompatibility between the Central
laws and State laws when applied in the concurrent field. The situation of repugnancy arises when two
laws are so inconsistent with each other that the application of any one of them would imply the
violation of another. 

The doctrine of repugnancy, in accordance to Article 254, states that if any part of State law is
repugnant or conflicting to any part of a Central law which the Parliament is competent to enact, or to
any part of a law of the matter of List III, then the Central law made by the Parliament shall prevail
and the law made by the State legislature shall become void, to the extent of its repugnancy. While
considering this doctrine, whether the central law is passed before or after the State law is immaterial.
Hence, this is a principle to ascertain that when a state law becomes repugnant to the Central law. 

Judicial interpretation

One of the landmark judgments concerning this doctrine is M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India. In this
case, a constitutional bench of the Apex court considered the question of repugnancy between a law
made by the Parliament and a law made by the State legislature. It was observed that the following
conditions should be satisfied for the application of the doctrine of repugnancy:
 1. A direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2. The inconsistency must be irreconcilable. 
3. The inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts should be of such nature as to
bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation should be reached
where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other. 
The Hon’ble Court also laid down some propositions in this respect. For the application of the doctrine
of repugnancy, two enactments must contain provisions that are so inconsistent that they cannot
stand together in the same field. Repeal by implication cannot be done unless there is a prima
facie repugnancy in the enactments. If two enactments exist in the same field and there is a possibility
for both of them to operate without colluding with the other, then this doctrine is not attracted. When
there is an absence of inconsistency but enactment in the same field creates distinct offences, the
question of repugnancy does not arise. 

Another landmark judgment is Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society, where the
Court observed that the judiciary must interpret legislation made by the Parliament and the State
Legislature in such a way that the question of conflict does not arise or can be circumvented.
However, if such a conflict between laws is unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall prevail.
Since List III gives equal competence to both the Parliament and the State Legislatures, to enact laws,
the highest scope of a conflict exists here. Again, the Court should interpret laws to avoid the conflict
or else follow the manner of resolution iterated in Article 245. Clause (2) of Article 254 deals with a
situation where the State legislation having been reserved and having obtained President’s assent,
prevails in that State; this again is subject to the proviso that Parliament can again bring a legislation
to override even such State legislation.  

The case of Hoechst Pharma ltd. v. State of Bihar discusses the effect of Clause (2) of Article 254. It
was observed that the assent of the President for a state law which is repugnant to a Central law for a
matter related to a concurrent subject is important as it results in the prevailing of the State law in
that particular State, thereby, overriding the application of the Central law in that state only. 

Tests for determining repugnancy

The principles of repugnancy have been applied under the Australian Constitution and have been
borrowed by analogy for their application in India. Following Australian precedents, the Court in the
case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that repugnancy between two enactments can
be identified with the help of the following three tests:

1. Whether there is a direct conflict between the two conflicting provisions;

2. Whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive enactment on the subject-
matter and to replace the law made by the State legislature; and
3. Whether the law made by the Parliament and that made by the State legislature occupies
the same field.

Direct conflict
Direct conflict is said to exist when two laws cannot be effectuated at the same time. A lucid
occurrence of repugnancy is when the existence of one law prohibits the application of another law
with respect to the same conduct. Such were the circumstances in the case Mati Lal Shah v Chandra
Kanta Sarkar before the Calcutta High Court. A conflict arose between Section 20 and Section 34 of
the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1936, and Section 31 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act,
1882 which is an existing Indian law in force. The former required that the service of a notice shall
stay for the execution of certain decrees against the agricultural debtors while the latter required that
the execution shall take place through other courts, if necessary. The Court held the provisions of the
Bengal Act void due to repugnancy.

In another case of Vishwanath v. Harihar Gir (1939), Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Bihar
MoneyLenders Act, 1938 was conflicting with Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
Bihar Act provided that the Court should fix an amount of the property, when it is brought for sale,
and not permit its sale below that fixed amount. On the other hand, the Code provided that the Court
shall mention the amount of the property which is mentioned by the Decree holder or judgment debtor
but is not required to vouch for the correct price of the property. The Court observed that the
application of both the provisions at the same time is impossible as they are contradictory to each
other. Hence, in substance, there is repugnancy. The Court held the provisions of the Bihar Act void
and applied those of the Code. In this case, it was seen that although there is a judicial eagerness to
limit the area of repugnancy, however, when it is coupled with mechanical reconciliation, the result
might not always end up being desirable or beneficial for the society in general. The implementation of
the doctrine remains unpreventable.

Exhaustive code
The test of direct conflict can prove to be narrow for complex scenarios. Thus, a second principle was
evolved for the fuller understanding of the application of the dominant legislation, which is, if the
Central government intentionally drafted a code for its exhaustive application for regulating the
subject-matter, then it would not be harmonious for the State legislation to function at the same time.
This test provides ample scope for the Judiciary to uphold the intended values, envisaged in the
paramount legislation, by the makers of the legislation and to defeat narrow arguments that could be
raised on the basis of the direct collision test.

In the case of State of Assam v. Horizon Union, the Apex Court undertook the exhaustive code test.
For appointing the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal, the qualifications required by the
candidate, as per the State law, were 3 years experience as a District Judge or qualified for
appointment as a High Court judge, provided that such appointment could be made only after
consultation with the High Court. The challenge, in the present case, was on a candidate who was
appointed without any consultation from the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Central
Act was intended to be an exhaustive code on the subject-matter, i.e., the appointment of District
Judges as a Presiding Officer, and the appointment was valid. However, if a person qualified to be
appointed as a Judge of the High Court were to be appointed as the Presiding Officer, the provisions in
the State law for consultation with the High Court were still valid. This shows on what narrow field the
Central Government was held to have laid down an exhaustive code. In the above case, the test of
direct conflict would have failed in determining the conflict. 

Occupying the same field

This test is in close relation with the exhaustive code test for identifying repugnancy between two
enactments. If the Central government has enacted a law with the intention of occupying the whole
field, then it would not be fit for the State law to legislate in the same field. 
In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. the State of Bombay, a convict pleaded that he was convicted by a Court
having no jurisdiction. According to the state law, the offence committed by him, that is, transporting
food grains without permit attracted imprisonment for a term of 7 years. On the other hand, the
Central law prescribed punishment of imprisonment for a term of 3 years for the offence committed by
him. An additional provision in the Central law was that the punishment could be increased to 7 years
if the person was found possessing double the permitted quantity of food grains. The convict argued
that he should have been governed by the provisions of the Bombay Act and not the Central Act which
would render the decision of the court a faulty one, and without jurisdiction as the Magistrate who
punished him could sentence him for the imprisonment of only up to 3 years. The occupation of the
field of both the laws was observed as seen whether they occupy the same field or not. The Supreme
Court held that both the laws occupied the same field and cannot be split up. Hence, the State laws
were held to be void and the Central law prevailed as per the doctrine of repugnancy.

Conclusion
The effect of the application of this doctrine will make the State law void to the extent of repugnancy.
As long as the Central law occupies the field, the State law is eclipsed. If, in case, the Central law is
repealed, then the State law shall revive. The doctrine of severability also comes into application since
if a State law is repugnant for a matter in the concurrent list, then only the repugnant part will be held
void and the rest shall function normally, thereby, giving rise to severability. Article 254 proves that
the Indian Constitution is both unitary and federal. This doctrine is quintessential for the Centre-State
relations in the country.

v) Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

 About:

o This Doctrine is also called “Fraud on the Constitution”.

o The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation comes into play when a
Legislature does not possess the power to make law upon a particular subject but
nonetheless indirectly makes one.

 By applying this principle the fate of the Impugned Legislation is

decided.
 Origin:

o This Doctrine traces its origin to a Latin Maxim which, in this context,
implies: “Whatever legislature cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly”.
 Constitutional Provision:

o The doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 which has demarcated the

Legislative Competence of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies by
outlining the different subjects under Union list, State list and Concurrent list.
 Limitation:

o The doctrine has no application where the powers of a Legislature

are not fettered by any Constitutional limitation.
o It is also not applicable to Subordinate Legislation.
 Important Judgement:

o In R.S Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977), the SC observed that “In the statute of
force, the colourable exercise of or extortion on administrative force or
misrepresentation on the constitution, are articulations which only imply that the
assembly is clumsy to authorise a specific law, albeit the mark of competency is
struck on it, and afterwards it is colourable enactment.”