send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
To resolve question of conflict between Union and State lists, Supreme Court has laid down certain principles through various judgments. Which of the following principles is/are correct in this regard?
1) Doctrine of Pith and Substance
2) Doctrine of Colorable Legislation
Select the correct answer using the code given below
1 only
2 only
both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
The basic purpose of this doctrine is to determine under which head of power or field i.e. under which list (given in the Seventh Schedule) a given piece of legislation falls. Pith means ‘true nature’ or ‘essence of something’ and Substance means ‘the most important or essential part of something’. Doctrine of Pith and Substance says that where the question arises of determining whether a particular law relates to a particular subject (mentioned in one List or another), the court looks to the substance of the matter. Thus, if the substance falls within Union List, then the incidental encroachment by the law on the State List does not make it invalid Statement 2 The literal meaning of Colorable Legislation is that under the ‘color’ or ‘guise’ of power conferred for one particular purpose, the legislature cannot seek to achieve some other purpose which it is otherwise not competent to legislate on. This Doctrine also traces its origin to a Latin Maxim: “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” This maxim implies that “when anything is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly”. In common parlance, it is meant to be understood as “Whatever legislature can’t do directly, it can’t do indirectly”. In our Constitution, this doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 which has demarcated the Legislative Competence of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies by outlining the different subjects under List I for the Union, List II for the States and List III for both, as mentioned in the Seventh Schedule. This doctrine comes into play when a Legislature does not possess the power to make law upon a particular subject but nonetheless indirectly makes one. By applying this principle the fate of the Impugned Legislation is decided
By: Abhipedia ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses