Constitutional Doctrines of India –
Explained with Case Laws
Basic Structure Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under
Article 368. Introduced in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it holds that
essential features—like rule of law, separation of powers, democracy, secularism, and
fundamental rights—cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment. This doctrine
ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and prevents authoritarian amendments. It was
reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(1980), protecting core constitutional principles from legislative overreach.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers
This doctrine divides governmental functions among three organs: legislature (makes laws),
executive (implements laws), and judiciary (interprets laws). Though not rigid in India, the
Constitution ensures checks and balances to avoid concentration of power. The Supreme
Court in Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955) held that Indian governance follows a
broad separation. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973), it
was declared a basic feature of the Constitution, ensuring no organ encroaches upon
another’s function.
Doctrine of Judicial Review
Judicial review empowers the judiciary to review laws and executive actions for
constitutional validity. It acts as a check on legislative and executive overreach. Originating
in Marbury v. Madison (U.S.), it’s embedded in Indian jurisprudence through Articles 13 and
32. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court
emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil
Nadu (2007), the Court extended judicial review to laws under the Ninth Schedule if they
violate the basic structure.
Doctrine of Eclipse
This doctrine means a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not void from inception
but becomes inactive or “eclipsed.” When the inconsistency is removed—such as by a
constitutional amendment—the law revives. The doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional
and pre-amendment laws. In Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955), the
Supreme Court held that a Motor Vehicles Act provision, though initially invalid, became
valid after the First Constitutional Amendment lifted the bar.
Doctrine of Severability
When part of a law is unconstitutional, the court can sever the invalid portion and uphold
the rest if it is workable independently. It prevents the whole statute from being struck
down due to a flawed section. In R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957), the
Supreme Court held that valid portions of the Prize Competition Act could stand, while
invalid ones were struck down. This doctrine preserves legislative intent without
invalidating entire statutes unnecessarily.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
This doctrine is used to determine the true nature or 'substance' of legislation when
legislative powers of the Centre and States overlap. If the law is substantially within the
jurisdiction of the legislature that enacted it, it is valid—even if it incidentally encroaches on
another’s domain. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), a prohibition law was upheld
as it was mainly a State subject (public health), though it touched upon trade and
commerce.
Doctrine of Colorable Legislation
This doctrine implies that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If a
legislature lacks power to enact a law and still passes it in disguise, it is colorable legislation.
In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953), the court invalidated a land reform
law as the real object was to penalize a political opponent, which exceeded the legislature’s
competence. The doctrine protects the Constitution’s federal balance by curbing abuse of
power.
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
This doctrine allows a law made by a legislature to apply outside its territory if a reasonable
nexus exists with its region. It validates extraterritorial operations of a law when the object
or subject has a connection with the enacting territory. In State of Bombay v. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwalla (1957), a Bombay law affecting activities outside Bombay was upheld as
there was sufficient territorial nexus. It helps deal with inter-state trade and commerce
regulation.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
Used to resolve conflicts between two provisions of a statute or the Constitution, this
doctrine mandates interpretation in a way that both provisions coexist without rendering
any part ineffective. The Supreme Court in Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
(1958) harmonized Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (religious denomination rights)
with Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), holding that the right to enter temples prevails
over religious customs that exclude entry.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
This doctrine prevents re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties once a
matter has been finally decided by a competent court. It upholds finality in legal
proceedings. In Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961), the Supreme Court applied res
judicata even to writ petitions under Article 32 if the matter had already been settled under
Article 226, preventing abuse of process and judicial redundancy.
