Doctrine of Pleasure

This doctrine originated in England. In England, the Crown is regarded as the Executive head and the
civil services are part of the Executive. The doctrine of Pleasure means that the Crown has the power
to terminate the services of a civil servant at any time they want without giving any notice of
termination to the servant. Thus the civil servants work at the pleasure of the Crown which can
remove them at any time. When the civil servants are removed from their service, they do not have
the right to sue the Crown for wrongful termination and they also cannot ask for damages
undergone due to wrongful termination. This doctrine is based on the concept of public policy and
whenever the Crown feels that a civil servant should be removed from his office because keeping
him will be against public policy, the Crown can remove such servant.

The doctrine of pleasure is also followed in India. Since the President of India is the Executive Head
of the Union and he enjoys the same position as the Crown enjoys in England, the President has
been vested with the power to remove a civil servant at any time under this doctrine.

While this doctrine has been adopted in India it has not been blindly copied in the same manner as it
is followed in England and there are some modifications which exist in India’s adoption of this
doctrine from that of England. In India, Article 310 of the Indian Constitution embodies the provision
for this doctrine.

According to Article 310, except for the provisions provided by the Constitution, a civil servant of the
Union works at the pleasure of the President and a civil servant under a State works at the pleasure
of the Governor of that State. This implies that the operation of the Doctrine of Pleasure can be
limited by constitutional provisions. Under the constitution, the following are excluded from the
operation of this doctrine:

1. Judges of the Supreme Court;

2. Judges of the High Courts;

3. Chief Election Commissioner; and

4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Thus, this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to Constitutional provisions. The civil servants can
also be excluded from the operation of this doctrine because they have been provided with some
protection under Article 311 and thus this doctrine’s application can be limited to civil servants as
well.
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance states that if the substance of legislation falls within a
legislature’s lawful power, the legislation does not become unconstitutional just because it impacts
an issue beyond its area of authority. “True nature and character” is what the phrase “pith and
substance” signifies. The infringement of the constitutional delimitation of legislative powers in a
Federal State is the subject of this concept. The Court uses it to determine whether the claimed
intrusion is just incidental or significant. Thus, the ‘pith and substance’ concept holds that the
challenged statute is fundamentally within the legislative competence of the legislature that enacted
it but only incidentally encroaches on the legislative field of another legislature.

The distribution of authority between the Union and the States is addressed in the Constitution’s
Seventh Schedule, which is enshrined under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution. Article 246 of the
Constitution defines the Union’s and states’ powers by categorising them into three lists, namely,
Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. The Indian Constitution establishes the doctrine of
separation of powers between the national and state governments.

Doctrine of colourable legislation

The maxim doctrine of colourable legislation means what cannot be done directly cannot also be
done indirectly. This doctrine is applied when legislature tries to accomplish something in a
backhanded way when it can't do it straightforwardly. In this manner, it alludes to the ability of the
legislature to establish a specific law. In the event that the reproved enactment falls within the
capacity of the legislature, the question of acting something indirectly which can't be done directly
doesn't emerge.

Doctrine of territorial nexus

Article 245) Extent of laws made by parliament and by the legislatures of states.

1. Subject to the provisions of this constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or
any part of the territory of India, and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole
or any part of the state.

2. According to clause 2 of Article 245, a law made by Parliament shall not be deemed to be
invalid on the ground that it has extra-territorial operation.

Territorial Nexus and the State Legislature

Doctrine of territorial nexus 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.

The Doctrine of Territorial nexus can be invoked under the following circumstances-

 Whether a particular state has extra-territorial operation.

 If there is a territorial nexus between the subject- matter of the Act and the state making the
law.
It signifies that the object to which the law applies need not be physically located within the
territorial boundaries of the state, but must have a sufficient territorial connection with the state.
A state may levy a tax on a person, property, object or transaction not only when it is situated within
its territorial limits, but also when it has a sufficient and real territorial connection with it.

Doctrine of repugnancy
This concept of repugnancy has been developed under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution to deal
with the conflict between the Centre and states regarding the legislation on the same subject matter
in the Concurrent List.

Sub-clauses of the Article are herein explained below:

Article 254(1) clearly states that if any legislation enacted by the state legislature is repugnant to the
legislation enacted by the Parliament, then the state legislation will be declared void, and the
legislation enacted by the Parliament will prevail over the former.

Illustration: Education is a part of the concurrent list. Therefore, both the State and the Centre can
amend the existing laws or make new laws for the betterment of the education system. However, if
the state government formulates a law that is inconsistent in a way that disregards the essence in
which the Parliament formulated the law on the same subject matter, then the state legislation will
be declared void. Moreover, if the laws formulated are not entirely inconsistent but some parts of
them are inconsistent, then the state legislature can enact that piece of legislation after removing
the inconsistency.

Article 254(2) clearly states that in case of a repugnant legislation passed by the state against the
Parliament, the state can enforce the legislation (within the state) if they receive assent from the
President.

Illustration: The Parliament passed a law stating that taxation on land is 5% but the State
Government of Kerala wants it to be 3%. Therefore, if the concerned state government obtains
assent from the President, they can enforce their version of taxation on the land.