INTRODUCTION

The letters of the constitution are fairly static and not very easy to change but
the laws enacted by the legislature reflect the current state of people and are
very dynamic. To ensure that the new laws are consistent with the basic
structure of the constitution, the constitution must be interpreted in a broad and
liberal manner giving effect to all its parts and the presumption must be that no
conflict or repugnancy was intended by its framers. Applying the same logic,
the provisions relating to fundamental rights have been interpreted broadly and
liberally in favour of the subject. Similarly, various legislative entries
mentioned in the Union, State, and Concurrent list have been construed liberally
and widely.
3671. Interpretation.—(1) Unless the context
otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897,
shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications
that may be made therein under article 372, apply
for the interpretation of this Constitution as it
applies for the interpretation of an Act of the
Legislature of the Dominion of India. (2) Any
reference in this Constitution to Acts or laws of, or
made by, Parliament, or to Acts or laws of, or made
by, the Legislature of a State 2 ***, shall be
construed as including a reference to an Ordinance
made by the President or, to an Ordinance made by
a Governor 3 ***, as the case may be. (3) For the
purposes of this Constitution “foreign State” means
any State other than India: Provided that, subject to
the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the
President may by order4 declare any State not to be
1
Part XIX, The Constitution of India, 1950

2
 a foreign State for such purposes as may be
specified in the order.
There are basically three types of interpretation of the constitution.
Historical interpretation
Ambiguities and uncertainties while interpreting the constitutional provisions
can be clarified by referring to earlier interpretative decisions.
Contemporary Interpretation
The Constitution must be interpreted in the light of the present scenario. The
situation and circumstances prevalent today must be considered.
Harmonious Construction
It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a statute two
provisions which are in such conflict with each other, that both of them cannot
stand together, they should possibly be so interpreted that effect can be given to
both. And that a construction which renders either of them inoperative and
useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

The following principles have frequently been discussed by the courts while
interpreting the Constitution:
1. Principle of Colourable Legislation
2. Principle of Pith and Substance
3. Principle of Eclipse
4. Principle of Severability
5. Principle of Territorial Nexus
6. Principle of Implied Powers Principle of Colourable Legislation
1. Principle of Colourable Legislation
The doctrine of colourable legislation addresses situations where the legislature,
within the constraints of the Constitution, attempts to do indirectly what it
cannot do directly. This principle of constitutional interpretation is based on the

3
 Latin maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per
obliquum,” meaning that what is prohibited directly is also prohibited indirectly.
Key Features:
 Legislative Competence: The principle is primarily concerned with whether a
legislature has the authority to enact a particular law.
 No Examination of Motives: It does not involve questions of legislative bona
fides or mala fides (good or bad faith).
 Direct vs. Indirect Legislation: The doctrine comes into play when a
legislature tries to achieve an objective indirectly that it cannot achieve
directly due to constitutional constraints.
 Application in India: This doctrine is often applied concerning Article 246,
which delineates the legislative competencies of the Parliament and State
Legislative Assemblies through the Union, State and Concurrent Lists in
the Seventh Schedule.
In cases where the legislature tries to enact laws under the guise of legitimate
objectives while circumventing constitutional limitations, courts use this
principle to determine the validity of such laws.
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, 19522
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh challenged the constitutional validity of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Act stipulated that the rent from the
landlord’s land, prior to the state’s acquisition of the holding, would vest with
the state. However, half of this rent was to be returned to the landlord as
compensation.
The Supreme Court held that this provision amounted to naked confiscation.
The act of taking the entire rent and returning only half was essentially the same
as taking half without compensation. While the Act purported to lay down
principles for compensation, its actual objective was confiscation—a subject

2
AIR 1959 SC 1303

4
 falling under the Concurrent List. Consequently, the Court deemed the Bihar
Land Reforms Act as colourable legislation, rendering it void.
Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, 19973
In Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme
Court clarified the application of the doctrine of colourable legislation. The
doctrine is pertinent only when:
 The true intention behind a legislation is disguised.
 There is an intent to encroach upon the domain of another legislature.
The purpose of a legislation might differ from its apparent objective. However,
it does not constitute colourable legislation if the issue does not pertain to the
legislative competence to enact it. The doctrine does not consider whether the
legislation was enacted with bona fide or mala fide intentions. The only relevant
question is whether the substance of the statute falls within the legislative
domain of the enacting body.
2. Principle of Pith and Substance
The principle of pith and substance is used to determine the true nature and
essential character of a legislation, especially when there is a conflict regarding
legislative competencies between the Union and State legislatures.
Key Features:
 True Nature and Substance: “Pith” refers to the true nature or essence of
something, while “substance” refers to its most important or essential part.
 Resolution of Conflicts: This doctrine of constitutional interpretation helps
resolve conflicts by determining which legislative field (Union List, State List
or Concurrent List) a particular piece of legislation falls into.
 Intra Vires vs. Ultra Vires: If the pith and substance of the legislation fall
within the legislative competence of the enacting body, it is deemed intra vires
(within powers), even if it incidentally encroaches upon matters outside its
jurisdiction.
3
(1998) 2 SCC 109

5
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara4
In State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which
prohibited the sale and possession of liquor, was challenged for encroaching
upon the Union List. The court upheld the act because its pith and substance fell
under the State List, despite incidental encroachments on the Union List.
Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, 19845
In the case of Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra (1984), the Supreme Court
reiterated that incidental encroachment does not render an enactment invalid.
The Court held that if a law primarily falls within the legislative powers granted
by the Constitution to the enacting legislature, it remains valid even if it
incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature.
State of Bombay v. Narottamdas, 19506
In State of Bombay v. Narottamdas (1950), the Supreme Court held that to
validate incidental encroachment, it must be shown that the pith and substance
of the law lie within the enacting legislature’s domain. The validity of a statute
is determined by its true nature, not merely by the degree of encroachment. If
the core purpose and essence (pith and substance) of the law fall within the
legislative powers of the enacting body, the law is upheld.
Krishna v. State of Madras, 19567
The Madras Prohibition Act, enacted in 1937, faced a challenge over a decade
later for prescribing procedures and principles of evidence for trials. The
appellants argued that the Act contradicted the central Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. However, the court upheld the Act, stating that it was ancillary to
the central legislation. The court concluded that the Act, in its pith and
substance, pertained to intoxicating liquors—a matter within the state list.
3. Principle of Eclipse

4
1951 AIR 318
5
1984 INSC27
6
AIR 1951 SC 69
7
1957 SC 297

6
 The doctrine of eclipse states that a law inconsistent with fundamental rights is
not entirely invalid but remains inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.
This inconsistency can be removed through constitutional amendments, thereby
reviving the law.
Key Features:
 Inoperative vs. Invalid: The law does not become null and void but is
overshadowed by the fundamental right.
 Constitutional Amendments: The eclipse can be removed if a constitutional
amendment eliminates the inconsistency.
 Pre-Constitution Laws: This principle particularly applies to laws that existed
before the commencement of the Constitution and became inoperative due to
conflicts with fundamental rights.
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay8
In the landmark case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, the
issue revolved around a law that existed before the Indian Constitution came
into force. This pre-constitution law imposed restrictions on the right to practice
any profession, trade or business, which is guaranteed to citizens of India under
Article 19(1)(g).
Key Points of the Case:
 Existing Law: The law in question was already in force when the Constitution
was enacted.
 Inconsistency with Fundamental Rights: The restrictions imposed by this law
could not be justified as reasonable under clause (6) of Article 19, which allows
for reasonable restrictions on the right to practice any profession, trade or
business.
 Article 13(1): According to Article 13(1), any pre-constitution law that is
inconsistent with the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution becomes void to the extent of such inconsistency.
8
AIR 1951 SC 128

7
 Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the law did not become void in its entirety or for
all purposes, times and persons. Instead, it became void only “to the extent of
such inconsistency.” This meant that the law remained valid except for the parts
that were inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution.
The Court clarified that the law’s invalidity was limited to its conflict with the
new constitutional provisions. As a result, the law was not entirely abrogated
but was rendered inoperative only to the extent that it infringed upon the
fundamental rights of the citizens.
4. Principle of Severability
The doctrine of severability, provided for under Article 13 of the Indian
Constitution, states that if parts of a law are unconstitutional, those parts can be
severed, leaving the rest of the law intact and enforceable.
Key Features:
 Severable vs. Inseverable: The unconstitutional provisions are severed if the
remaining law can still function independently and effectively.
 Constitutional Provisions: These principles of constitutional interpretation
states that laws that contravene fundamental rights are void to the extent of
inconsistency.
 Preservation of Legislation: Courts strive to preserve as much of the
legislation as possible by severing only the unconstitutional parts.
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras9
In AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court said that in case of
repugnancy to the Constitution, only the repugnant provision of the impugned
Act will be void and not the whole of it and every attempt should be made to
save as much as possible of the Act.

9
AIR 1950 SC 27

8
 If the omission of the invalid part will not change the nature or the structure of
the object of the legislature, it is severable. It was held that except Section 14 all
other sections of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 were valid and since
Section 14 could be severed from the rest of the Act, the detention of the
petitioner was not illegal.
5. Principle of Territorial Nexus
The principle of territorial nexus allows for legislation to have an effect beyond
the territorial limits of the enacting body, provided there is a sufficient
connection between the subject matter and the territory.
Key Features:
 Extra-Territorial Operation: Article 245(2) clarifies that Parliament’s laws
are not invalid due to extra-territorial operation.
 Sufficient Connection: There must be a real and substantial connection
between the law and the territory.
 Taxation and Other Laws: Often applied in cases involving taxation where the
subject matter is outside the territorial limits but has a significant nexus with the
state.
State of Bombay v. RMDC, 195710
In State of Bombay v. RMDC (1957), the legality of a lump sum tax imposed
by the Bombay Government on lotteries was challenged. The lottery in question
was conducted through a newspaper that had wide circulation within the State
of Bombay and outside its boundaries. The tax extended to the circulation and
distribution of newspapers that were published outside the state.
The Supreme Court upheld the tax, stating that there was sufficient territorial
nexus to justify the imposition of the tax. The critical factor was that the
collection of entry fees for the lottery competition took place within Bombay.
Despite the newspapers’ wide circulation beyond the state’s borders, the locus
of the taxable activity—entry fee collection—was within Bombay. Therefore,
10
AIR 1957 SC 699.

9
 the court concluded that the tax was valid due to the substantial and real
connection between the activity being taxed and the territory of Bombay.
State of Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal, 195711
In State of Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal (1957), the Supreme Court
addressed the validity of a law enacted by the Bombay legislature that
criminalised bigamous marriages. This law extended to marriages conducted
outside Bombay if one of the parties was domiciled in Bombay.
The Supreme Court struck down the law, citing an insufficient territorial nexus.
The Court reasoned that the law could not apply to marriages performed outside
the state merely because one party was domiciled in Bombay. The connection
between the act of marriage outside the state and the domicile of one party
within the state was deemed too tenuous to sustain the legislative authority of
Bombay over such marriages. Hence, the lack of a substantial and real
connection led to the law being invalidated for its overreach beyond territorial
jurisdiction.
6. Principle of Implied Powers
The doctrine of implied powers holds that powers not explicitly stated but
necessary for the execution of constitutionally granted powers are also valid.
Key Features:
 Necessity and Proper Clause: Powers necessary and proper for executing
granted powers are implied.
 Constitutional Interpretation: General terms in constitutional grants of power
or restraints lead to implied powers or restraints.
 Execution of Powers: Ensures that the legislative and executive branches can
effectively perform their constitutionally assigned duties.
Legal Basis: This principle is rooted in the functional and purposive
interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the spirit of constitutional
provisions is fulfilled even when not explicitly stated.
11
AIR 1953 Bom 439

10
 7. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
The doctrine of harmonious construction is a judicial principle used to resolve
conflicts between different provisions of the same statute. It operates on the
presumption that the legislature did not intend for one provision to negate or
contradict another and that every provision should be given effect to the fullest
extent possible.
Key Principles of Harmonious Construction:
1. Avoiding Neglect of Provisions: The legislature does not intend to prioritise
one provision over another, nor does it intend to create contradictions.
2. Ensuring Coherence: Conflicting provisions should be interpreted in a manner
that allows both to coexist without rendering any part ineffective or redundant.
Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain, 199612
In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the doctrine, stating that
conflicting provisions should be interpreted to ensure neither is ignored. The
court emphasised the need to read the statute as a whole and to construe it in a
way that maintains the effectiveness of all its provisions.
Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, 199713
Here, the Supreme Court reiterated the need to read statutes harmoniously,
ensuring that no provision becomes ineffective. The court emphasised that the
objective of harmonious construction is to avoid conflict and promote the
smooth functioning of the legislative intent.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 195114
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India addressed the objective of harmonious
construction by stating that when two articles of the Constitution are broadly
phrased and conflict in their operation, they should be controlled and qualified
by each other to maintain harmony.
Ram Krishan v. Vinod, 195115
12
1996 8 Supreme 482
13
AIR 1997 SC 645
14
AIR 1951 SC 458

11
 In this case, the Supreme Court resolved a conflict within the Representation of
the People Act, 1951. Section 33 allowed government servants to nominate
candidates, while Section 123 prohibited them from assisting candidates except
by voting. The Court harmoniously construed these provisions, allowing
government servants to nominate and vote for candidates, but prohibiting any
other form of assistance.
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, 195516
Bengal Immunity Co v State of Bihar highlighted the limits of the doctrine. The
Court held that conflicting provisions should be interpreted to allow both to be
effective. However, if it is impossible to harmonise the provisions, the less
useful provision can be ignored, provided there is no compulsion to adopt it.
8. Doctrine of Repugnancy
The doctrine of repugnancy addresses conflicts between state and central laws
in India. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution provides the framework for
resolving such conflicts.
Article 254(1)
Article 254(1) states that if a state law is repugnant (i.e., incompatible) with:
 A law that the Parliament is competent to enact, or
 An existing law under the Concurrent List,
then the central or existing law prevails and the state law is void to the extent of
the repugnancy. The chronology of the laws’ enactment is irrelevant.
Key Points:
 Central Law Prevails: In case of conflict, the central law overrides the state
law.
 Repugnant Provisions: The conflicting parts of the state law do not become
ultra vires (beyond powers); they are merely eclipsed. If the central law is
repealed, the state law provisions become operative again.

15
AIR 1951 SC 332
16
AIR 1955 SC 661

12
 Doctrine of Pith and Substance: This doctrine is used to determine if the true
nature of the state law falls under a matter listed in the Concurrent List. If the
repugnancy is with a central law, it must be assessed whether Parliament
intended to create an exhaustive code on the matter. If not, any qualifications or
restrictions by the state law are not considered repugnant.
Article 254(2)
Article 254(2) provides an exception where a state law on a concurrent matter,
repugnant to a central law, can prevail if it receives Presidential assent.
However, this only applies to the state concerned and not uniformly across the
country.
Key Points:
 Presidential Assent: The state law can override the central law if it receives
Presidential assent, but it must be specified that the assent is sought for the
repugnancy with a particular act. Failing to specify this makes the state law
invalid.
 State-Specific Application: The inconsistent provisions apply only within the
state that enacted the law.
 Subsequent Central Laws: If the central government enacts a new law
conflicting with the state act that had Presidential assent, the central law
prevails, as held in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum (1995).17
Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka, 198718
The case involved a state law restricting legal practitioners from appearing
before land tribunals. The Supreme Court found the state law invalid due to its
repugnancy to the Advocates Act, 1961.
Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, 199319

17
(1995) 4 SCC 718
18
AIR 1987 SC 1518
19
AIR 1993 SC 2335

13
The West Bengal State Health Service Act, 1990, barred state health service
members from private practice, conflicting with the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956, which allowed practitioners to practice anywhere in India. The Court
upheld the state law, distinguishing it from the Srinivasa Raghavachar case by
noting that health service members voluntarily gave up private practice rights.
Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, 199020
This case held that repugnancy must concern a matter in the Concurrent List. If
the subject matters of the conflicting laws are different, both can stand together.
However, a dissenting opinion argued that irreconcilable conflicts should lead
to the state law being struck down.
Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable
Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, 199621
This case dealt with a Tamil Nadu statute on the affiliation of medical colleges,
challenged for repugnance against the Indian Medical Council Act. The Court
held that Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code for the subject,
making the state act invalid.

CONCLUSION
These principles of constitutional interpretation play a critical role in
maintaining the balance of power between different branches of government,
protecting individual rights and ensuring the Constitution remains a living
document capable of addressing contemporary issues. By applying these
doctrines, courts can interpret the Constitution in a manner that respects its text
and underlying principles while adapting to changing societal needs.

20
1990 AIR 2072 1990 SCR (1) 614
21
(1996) 3 SCC 15

14