INDIAN CONSTITUTION ALL DOCTRINES RPSC JLO 2023> Doctrine of Separation of Powers = Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab (1955) The SC held that “Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its\ absolute rigidity) but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) SC held that “Separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the constitution. None of the three separate organs of the republic can take over the functions assigned to the other”.> Doctrine of and Substance = MEANING:- Pith means ‘true nature’ and Substance means ‘the most important or essential part of something’. where the question arises of determining whether a particular law relates to a particular subject (given in 7** Sch), the court looks to the substance of the matter. The doctrine aims at resolving the inconsistency between laws made by the Centre & State Legislatdres. Prafulla v. Bank of Commerce (1946) SC held that a State law relating to money lending (a State subject) is not invalid merely because it(incidentally affected the promissory notes (which is a centre subject).Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla (1958) SC ruled that “The power to legislate on a topic of legislation carries with it the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the power given.”Doctrine of Severability A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SC held that in case of inconsistency to the Constitution, only the disputed provision of the Act will befvoid a id not the act entirely. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) 8 provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act were declared invalid, the SC ruled that the portion which was invalid to the extent of fundamental rights was separable from the rest of the act.Doctrine of Eclipse Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) It was first introduced in India when the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 empowered the Provincial Government to take up the entire Provincial Motor| Transport Business as they were considered as violative of article 19(1) (4) @. The Supreme Court held that this impugned law became, for the time being/eclipsed by the fundamental right. InconsiSten Can he remnawed by Constitection! Omerdment- Inoparatine”Doctrine of Territorial Nexus A.H. Wadia v. Income Tax Commissioner (1948) It was held that a question of(extra- territorial operation of enactment can never be raised against a Supreme Legislative Authority on the grounds of questioning its validity. 8tate of Bombay vs RMDC (1952) SC held that there existed a sufficient territorial nexus to enable the Bombay Legislature to tax the respondent as all the activities that took place was mostly within Bombay. LelationsDoctrine of Colourable Legislation State of Bihar V kameshwar Singh It is the only case where a law has been declared invalid on the ground of colourable legislation. In this case, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, of 1950, was held void on the ground that though apparently, it purported to lay down any such principle and thus indirectly sought to deprive the petitioner of any compensation. VickersDoctrine of Prospective Overruling Post) <= | Sep ares Law’ “es wo funichee ‘Wre daleDoctrine of Waiver Lew? Basheshar Nath V. Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court held that fundamental rights of a person cannot be waived. ~~Doctrine of Pleasure Union of India v. Balbir Singh Supreme Court held that it had the power to examine the satisfaction on the basis of which the President or the Governor dismissed a public servant, If the satisfaction is unrelated to the security of the State then it would be considered irrelevant and the Court can hold such dismissal invalid,Doctrine of Laches Ravindra Jain v. Union of India Supreme Court stated that the recourse under article 32 may be refused based on/excessive delay) However, there hasn't been a case to have the Supreme Court ruling overturn the aforementioned case legislation.Doctrine of Basic Structure Tea aeran hats 1 Amended 1951 Pri. added art 31A, 318 which gave gov. power to acquire property Challenged in -Shankari Prasad VS Union Of india 1951 |SC- Power to amend constitution u/art 368 includes amendment of FR /And word “LAW” u/art 13(3) means- only ordinary law, not constitution amended law. {7th Amendment 1964 Pri. amended art 318 44 new Acts added in 9th Sch Challenged in-Sajjan Singh VS State OF Rajasthan 1965 |SC approved decision of shanakri prasad - parliament has power to amend FR. challenged in-Golakhnath VS State Of Punjab 1967 SC- word “LAW” u/art 13(3) includes constitutional amended law. Parliament cannot take away or abridged 24° Amendment 1973, Pri. added Art 13(4) and 368(3) Challenged in-Kesavananda bharati VS State of Kerala 1973 \/ SC overruled decision of Golakhnath & held- Parliament cannot destroy “basic structure of constitution” | 42° Amendment 197 Pri. added art 368(4), (5) - Challenged in—Minerva Mills VS Union of India 1980 \ SC- art 3624) & 3695) are invalid, they volte 2 base features ofthe constitution. 4. dudcal review 2. Limited nature of power to amend Ais, itis the constitution which is supreme and not the parliament Pariment cannot have unlimited power of amending constitution which destroys basic structure.=o) 4 Amendment 1951 & Ue Rea (=:)47% Amendment 1964 zzz MTom aeons THE BASIC STRUCTURE ae as = a of Constitution (52) 24% Amendment 1971 « Bg = COCR =o) 424 Amendment 1976 & Be eee =