Key Doctrines: Constitutional and Administrative Law

Basic Structure Doctrine Origin: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Parliament can amend the Constitution under Art. 368 but cannot destroy its basic structure. Recognised elements: supremacy of Constitution, republican and democratic form, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, judicial review, free and fair elections, dignity of individual, unity and integrity of nation, parliamentary system, rule of law, equality, social justice, and independence of judiciary.

Doctrine of Eclipse Origin: Bhikhaji Narain Dhakras v. State of MP (1955). Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void but dormant — eclipsed. They automatically revive if the constitutional bar (FR) is amended to remove the inconsistency. Does NOT apply to post-constitutional laws (those are void ab initio under Art. 13(2)).

Doctrine of Severability Origin: R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957). Only the unconstitutional part of a law is struck down; the rest remains valid if separable and independently workable. Test: Would Parliament have enacted the law even without the invalid portion?

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation Origin: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953). Even where a legislature appears to act within its powers, if in substance it is encroaching upon another legislature's domain, the legislation is 'coloured' or 'disguised' — and is invalid. The label does not matter; the substance does.

Pith and Substance Doctrine Origin: Profulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Khulna (1947, PC); State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951). If a law incidentally trenches on another legislature's field, courts look at its true nature and character. If it falls substantially within the legislature's competence, it is valid despite incidental encroachment.

Doctrine of Occupied Field When Parliament legislates exhaustively on a Concurrent List subject, it occupies the entire field — States cannot legislate on the same subject. Related to Art. 254 repugnancy.

Doctrine of Pleasure (Article 310) Government servants hold office during the pleasure of the President/Governor. Subject to Art. 311 procedural safeguards. Does NOT apply to SC/HC judges (who hold during good behaviour) or Constitutional authorities with specific security of tenure.

Doctrine of Implied Powers Powers not expressly conferred but necessarily implied from express provisions. Applied to fill lacunae in the Constitution.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling Origin in India: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) — Subba Rao CJ. When the SC overrules a previous decision, it can declare that the overruling shall operate only prospectively — not affecting past transactions. Prevents injustice from retroactive application of a new legal rule.

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2)) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Narrower than the common law autrefois acquit/convict — applies only to prosecution AND punishment, not to mere prosecution. Disciplinary proceedings + criminal proceedings on the same facts do NOT violate Art. 20(2).

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity The State is not liable for acts done in the exercise of sovereign functions. In P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1861), a distinction was drawn between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Post-Constitution, the SC in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP (1965) upheld the distinction. Later cases (N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of AP, 1994) significantly eroded it — State cannot claim immunity for tortious acts of its servants.

Doctrine of Res Judicata in Constitutional Matters In Devilal Modi v. STO (1964), the SC held that res judicata applies to writ petitions also. A petition dismissed on merits creates res judicata — but a petition dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy does not bar a fresh petition.

Doctrine of Ultra Vires An act beyond the powers conferred by the enabling statute is ultra vires and void. Two types: Substantive ultra vires (acting beyond scope) and Procedural ultra vires (not following prescribed procedure). In delegated legislation: mandatory procedural requirements must be followed; directory requirements — their breach may not invalidate the legislation.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation A person has a legitimate expectation if a public authority has, by conduct, promise, or consistent practice, led them to reasonably expect a certain procedure will be followed or benefit will not be withdrawn without a hearing. Gives procedural right only — not substantive right to the expected benefit (Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corp., 1993). The authority can always override LE for larger public interest, provided it gives an opportunity to be heard.

Doctrine of Proportionality The means used by the State to achieve a legitimate aim must be proportionate — not more restrictive of rights than necessary. Four-stage test: (1) legitimate aim; (2) rational connection; (3) necessity (minimum impairment); (4) proportionality stricto sensu (fair balance). Adopted in Om Kumar (2001) for service matters; expanded to FR restrictions in Modern Dental College (2016) and Puttaswamy (2017).

Doctrine of Wednesbury Unreasonableness From Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948). A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. High threshold — courts do not evaluate the merits of the decision; only ask whether it was within the range of reasonable responses. Slowly being replaced in rights-based cases by proportionality.

Doctrine of Fairness (Duty to Act Fairly) Wider than natural justice. Even in cases where formal natural justice rules may not apply, a public authority must act fairly. Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded the duty of fairness to all State action affecting persons.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel The government is estopped from going back on a promise or representation on which a citizen has acted to his detriment. Confirmed in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (1979). Exceptions: (1) Public interest requires the change; (2) The original promise was made without authority. Differs from legitimate expectation (LE is wider — no specific promise needed).

Delegatus Non Potest Delegare A delegate cannot further delegate the power delegated to it unless expressly or impliedly permitted by the parent Act. Prevents uncontrolled sub-delegation of legislative power.

Doctrine of Excessive Delegation Parliament cannot abdicate its essential legislative function. It must lay down the policy and the standards — delegation of powers to fill in details is permissible, but delegation of the entire legislative field is unconstitutional. In re Delhi Laws Act (1951): SC held that the essential legislative functions cannot be delegated.