Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

DOCTRINES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Kumarappan M, Sastra Deemed To Be University

Badhurunnisa M, Sastra Deemed To Be University

ABSTRACT

The doctrines of the Indian Constitution encompass foundational principles,

shaping the nation's legal and political framework. These include the nation's
status as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. The Preamble
serves as a key to the Constitution, emphasizing justice, liberty, equality, and
fraternity. The federal structure, with a unitary bias, defines the distribution of
powers. India follows a parliamentary system, with the judiciary holding the
power of judicial review. Fundamental Rights protect individual liberties, while
Directive Principles guide the state in achieving socio-economic justice. The
rule of law ensures equal treatment for all, and an independent judiciary upholds
justice. The Constitution allows for flexibility through an amendment procedure.
India maintains a secular state, promoting religious harmony. The overarching
goal is to eliminate social and economic inequalities and foster equality and
social justice. Understanding these doctrines is essential for a comprehensive
grasp of India's constitutional framework.

The doctrines under the Indian Constitution are foundational Doctrines and
guidelines that shape the interpretation and application of its provisions. These
doctrines, developed by the judiciary over the years, play a crucial role in
safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring constitutional balance, and upholding
the rule of law. The introduction of these doctrines reflects the dynamic nature
of constitutional jurisprudence in India.

Page: 5653
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Introduction

The doctrines embedded within the Indian Constitution serve as foundational principles and
interpretative guidelines that shape the application of its provisions. Developed over time by the
judiciary, these doctrines play a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights, maintaining
constitutional equilibrium, and upholding the rule of law. This dynamic evolution of constitutional
jurisprudence in India reflects the adaptability and resilience of the legal framework.

These doctrines collectively contribute to the robustness and adaptability of the Indian
Constitution. They provide a framework for constitutional interpretation, ensuring that the
Doctrines of justice, equality, and liberty enshrined in the Constitution remain the bedrock of
India's legal system.

• Basic structure doctrine: The doctrine implies that there are certain essential features of the
Constitution, like democracy, the separation of powers, and fundamental rights, which form
its basic structure and are beyond the scope of amendments that would violate these
Doctrines. This concept serves as a check on the extent to which the Constitution can be
amended, ensuring the preservation of its core values.

Case law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1(1973) : This is case where the Supreme
Court held Parliament has the power to change the Constitution, but cannot change its basic
structure. It was reaffirmed by the SC in the Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain case2 (1975).

The SC court invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) which kept the
election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the
jurisdiction of all courts.

Basic structure doctrine was reaffirmed in the Minerva Mills case3, 1980 and later in the
Waman Rao case4, 1981.

1
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
2
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain case (AIR 1975 SC 865)
3
Minerva Mills V Union of india (AIR 1980 SC 1789)
4
Waman Rao V Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 271)

Page: 5654
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

In this case the Supreme Court examined the validity of Article 31A and Article 31B of the
Constitution of India with respect to the doctrine of basic structure.

• Territorial Consolidation Doctrine: -While the Indian Constitution provides the framework
for territorial adjustments and reorganization of states under Article 3, specific instances of
territorial consolidations are often reflected in legislative actions rather than individual court
cases. The creation of new states or alteration of state boundaries typically involves
parliamentary procedures and legislation. One significant example is the case of the
reorganization of states in 1956 when the States Reorganization Act was enacted. This led to
the creation of new states and union territories based on linguistic and administrative
considerations. However, the legal aspects of such changes are more commonly associated
with parliamentary acts and political decisions rather than landmark court cases.

• Doctrine of Colourable Legislative : -It means that a legislative body might look like it's
following the rules, but in reality, it could be hiding a hidden agenda or going beyond what
the constitution allows. This highlights the need to make sure that laws passed stay within
the limits set by the constitution and aren't a sneaky way of going beyond those boundaries.

Case law: K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa5 (1954) - The Court It has been
made clear that the legislature cannot conceal its true intentions by enacting laws on subjects
that are beyond its legislative authority.

• Doctrine of severability: The doctrine of severability in the Indian Constitution allows the
courts to strike down specific provisions of a law while preserving the validity of the
remaining parts that are constitutionally sound. Here are a few instances where the doctrine
of severability has been applied, and certain provisions have been struck down by the courts
- Case law: National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (2015): * The Supreme
Court, in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India6
(2015), declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th
Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional. While striking down the provisions related to

5
K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa(AIR 1953 SC 375)
6
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 5457)

Page: 5655
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

the NJAC, the court maintained the independence of the judiciary by upholding the existing
collegium system. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India 7(1957) - Courts apply the
doctrine and treat parts of the law It was held that if a section is unconstitutional, only that
part shall be declared invalid.

• Public trust doctrine: the Public Trust Doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the
constitution but has been recognized and evolved through judicial decisions. The doctrine, as
applied by Indian courts, is rooted in the broader concept of environmental protection and the
constitutional mandate to safeguard the environment. the Public Trust Doctrine in India has
been predominantly applied in environmental cases, its scope continues to evolve. The
judiciary's recognition of the government's role as a trustee for natural resources underscores
the constitutional imperative to balance development with environmental conservation and
the well-being of the public.

Case law: M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath8 (1997) - The court affirmed the Doctrine ; It was held
that natural resources are held in trust by the state for the public benefit. Case law: M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India 9(1986) - Courts must protect public resources and environment

• Doctrine of judicial review: In India, the Doctrine of Judicial Review is a constitutional

Doctrine that empowers the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, to review and strike
down laws and governmental actions that violate the provisions of the Constitution. This
doctrine ensures that legislative and executive actions are consistent with the constitutional
framework, protecting fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. Judicial review
allows the judiciary to review and repeal unconstitutional laws.

10
Case law: Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) -: The court has held that:
Established.

• Reasonable Expectations Doctrine: The Reasonable Expectations Doctrine under the

7
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 628)
8
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1977) 1 SCC 388]
9
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086)
10
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461)

Page: 5656
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Indian Constitution refers to the Doctrine that individuals have a legitimate expectation that
public authorities will act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with established procedures.
This doctrine, evolving from Doctrines of natural justice, allows individuals to challenge
administrative actions that violate their reasonable expectations of a fair decision-making
process.

11
Case law: B. Prabhakar Rao v. State AP (1986) - The court held that individuals have a
reasonable expectation that authorities will act fairly and reasonably.

• Waiver doctrine: The Waiver Doctrine under the Indian Constitution pertains to the Doctrine
that individuals may voluntarily relinquish or waive their fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. However, it's important to note that certain fundamental rights, especially
those considered essential for the preservation of a democratic society, may have limitations
on waiver. The judiciary typically scrutinizes waivers closely to ensure they are voluntary,
informed, and not against public policy or constitutional values. - Case law: Om Kumar v.
Union of India12 (2001) - Courts have discussed the limits of waiver of fundamental rights.

13
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)-The court discussed the limits on
waiving fundamental rights, emphasizing the need for voluntariness

• Doctrine of harmonious construction: Harmonious construction under the Indian

Constitution refers to the interpretative Doctrine where different provisions or parts of the
Constitution are read together in a way that avoids any conflict or contradiction. Instead of
interpreting provisions in isolation, courts aim for a harmonious reading that ensures
consistency and coherence in the constitutional framework. This approach helps in giving
effect to the intention of the framers and maintaining the overall balance of the constitutional
scheme. –

14
Case law: State of Bihar v. Bihar Distilleries Ltd (1997) - Courts applied doctrine to

11
B. Prabhakar Rao v. State AP(AIR 1986 SC 120)
12
Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386]
13
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158]
14
State of Bihar v. Bihar Distilleries Ltd [(1977) 2 SCC 727]

Page: 5657
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

reconcile conflicting provisions in statutes. Legal Precedent: Reserve Bank of India v.

Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 15 (1987)-The court applied the doctrine
to harmonize provisions of different statutes. Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth16
(1977)

The court advocated for harmonious construction to reconcile potential conflicts between
entries in different lists.

• Doctrine of stare decisis: - The doctrine of stare decisis, or precedent, under the Indian
Constitution signifies that decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts. Once a legal
Doctrine has been established by a higher court, it should generally be followed by lower
courts in similar cases. This doctrine promotes consistency, stability, and predictability in the
legal system by relying on past judicial decisions to guide current and future interpretations
of the law. However, the Supreme Court in India has the authority to depart from its previous
decisions in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice and correct legal errors. Precedent
confirms the effectiveness of affirmative action policies.

Case law: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India17 (2006) -The court held that: I followed.

• Doctrine of Judicial Activism: Judicial activism under the Indian Constitution refers to
instances where the judiciary actively interprets and shapes laws, often extending beyond
traditional interpretations. It involves the court playing a proactive role in addressing social
issues and enforcing fundamental rights. While it can be seen as a positive force for justice,
critics argue it may encroach on the domain of the executive and legislature. The judiciary,
particularly the Supreme Court, has employed judicial activism in various cases to protect
individual rights and promote social justice, contributing to the dynamic evolution of legal
Doctrines in India Case law: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan18 (1997) -Courts should act to
protect the law. The workplace regulates sexual harassment that indicates judicial

15
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd(AIR 1987 SC 1023)
16
Union of India v. SankalchandHimatlal Sheth(1977 AIR 2328)
17
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212]
18
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[(1997) 6 SCC 241]

Page: 5658
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

involvement.

• Doctrine of separation of powers: The separation of powers doctrine in the Indian

Constitution is reflected through the distribution of powers among the Executive, Legislature,
and Judiciary. It aims to prevent the abuse of authority by ensuring distinct functions for each
branch, fostering checks and balances. Case law: Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab19
(1955) - The court discussed the importance of maintaining separation of powers between the
executive, legislative and judicial branches. The court emphasized the critical role of
maintaining a clear separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches.

• Doctrine of sovereign immunity: in India, the concept of sovereign immunity isn't explicitly
mentioned in the constitution. However, the government enjoys immunity from certain legal
actions. Article 300 of the Indian Constitution deals with the government's liability. It states
that the government of India may sue or be sued in its own name, but the extent of sovereign
immunity is subject to legal provisions and limitations set by statutes. - Case law: State of
Rajasthan v. Vidyawati 20(1962) - Court recognized sovereign immunity, but with exceptions
If the government that has also recognized the situation could be held liable.

• Proportionality Doctrine : The doctrine of proportionality under the Indian Constitution is

a legal Doctrine that ensures that the use of state power is balanced and not excessive in
relation to its intended purpose. It implies that any action taken by the government should be
proportionate to the need or objective it seeks to achieve. While not explicitly mentioned in
the constitution, the Indian judiciary has invoked this doctrine in cases involving fundamental
rights, ensuring that restrictions imposed by the state are reasonable and proportionate. - Case
law: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India 21(2016) - Courts apply Doctrines to assess the
reasonableness of restrictions Fundamental rights.

19
Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab(AIR 1955 SC 549)
20
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati(AIR 1962 SC 933)
21
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (AIR 2016 SC 2728)

Page: 5659
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Doctrine of due process: In the Indian legal context, the term "due process" is not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution. However, the concept is inherent in the constitutional
guarantees, particularly under Article 21, which states that "no person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. "

Case law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India22 (1978) - Courts must be fair and impartial.

• Doctrine of intergenerational equity: The doctrine of intergenerational equity is not

explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, the Doctrines associated
withintergenerational equity are reflected in various constitutional provisions, particularly
those related to the environment and sustainable development.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
has been interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to a healthy environment. Courts in
India have acknowledged the intergenerational aspect by emphasizing the need for
sustainable development and responsible use of natural resources. In environmental cases,
the judiciary has held that the present generation must act as a trustee of resources for the
benefit of future generations. The idea is to balance development with the preservation of the
environment to ensure that resources are used judiciously and do not compromise the well-
being of future generations. While the specific term "intergenerational equity" may not be
used, the underlying Doctrines align with the concept in environmental jurisprudence.

Case law: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India23 (1996) -Doctrine in the issue
and emphasizes the responsibility to conserve resources for future generations.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P. 24 (1988)

The court invoked the doctrine in environmental matters, emphasizing the responsibility to
protect resources for future generations.

22
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(AIR 1978 SC 597)
23
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India(AIR 1996 SC 2715)
24
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P (AIR 1989 SC 594)

Page: 5660
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Concurrent Listing Doctrine: The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains
three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The Concurrent List
includes subjects on which both the central and state governments can legislate. If there is a
conflict between a central law and a state law on a concurrent subject, the central law prevails.
However, if a state law that is inconsistent with a central law has received the President's
assent, the state law will prevail in that state.

Case Law: Union of India Vs. SankalchandHimatlal Sheth 25(1977) - The court discussed the
distribution of legislative powers between the Center and the Concurrent List states. and the
central prevails over

• Procedural injustice doctrine: While there isn't a specific "procedural injustice doctrine"
explicitly outlined in the Indian Constitution, the Doctrines of natural justice and fair
procedure are inherent in the constitutional framework. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the judiciary
to encompass the Doctrines of natural justice. The Doctrines of natural justice include the
right to a fair hearing, an unbiased tribunal, and the opportunity to present one's case. Courts
in India have consistently held that any administrative or legal action that affects the rights
of individuals must adhere to these Doctrines to prevent procedural injustice. If there are
specific cases or developments you have in mind related to procedural injustice under the
Indian Constitution, providing more details could help in offering a more precise and relevant
response.

26
Case law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) -Courts need justice To ensure that
Doctrines of natural justice are observed in gender-sensitive legal proceedings.

These doctrines and related cases contribute to the rich jurisprudence of the Indian Constitution
and reflect the evolving nature of constitutional law in the country.

• Doctrine of Pleasure in Government Servants' Removal: The "doctrine of pleasure" is a

25
Union of India Vs. SankalchandHimatlal Sheth (1977 AIR 2328)
26
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(AIR 1978 SC 597)

Page: 5661
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

constitutional Doctrine under the Indian Constitution that empowers the President of India or
the Governors of states to remove certain government servants at their discretion. This
doctrine is explicitly mentioned in Article 310 of the Constitution.

Article 310 states that certain government servants, known as "persons serving in the Indian
or any state's civil services or holding civil posts under the Union or a state," hold their
positions during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be. This means
they can be removed from their posts by the President or Governor without any specific cause,
subject to the provisions of the Constitution. While this doctrine provides the executive with
the authority to remove government servants at its discretion, it does not mean arbitrary or
whimsical removal. The exercise of this power is expected to be reasonable and not violate
other constitutional provisions, such as equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. It's
worth noting that this doctrine primarily applies to specific categories of government
servants, and many public servants, especially those covered by statutory bodies or other
provisions, may not fall under the doctrine of pleasure.

Case law: Moti Ram v. Param Dev27 (1974), the Supreme Court of India ruled that under the
Constitution, if a person holds office at the pleasure of the President or Governor, it implies
a tenure at the will and pleasure of the authority, allowing for removal without the necessity
of providing a specific reason.

• Doctrine of Pith and Substance: The doctrine of pith and substance is applicable in the
context of the distribution of legislative powers under the Indian Constitution. India follows
a federal structure with a division of powers between the Union (central government) and the
States. The distribution of powers is outlined in three lists: the Union List, the State List, and
the Concurrent List. The doctrine of pith and substance comes into play when a law is
challenged on the grounds that it falls outside the constitutional authority of the legislature
that enacted it. In such cases, the court examines the "true nature and character" or the "pith
and substance" of the legislation to determine its dominant purpose. This helps in assigning
the law to the appropriate list. The application of this doctrine ensures that legislative

27
Moti Ram v. Param Dev (AIR 1993 SC 1662)

Page: 5662
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

competence is respected, preventing one level of government from encroaching on the

powers of another. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the delicate balance between the
Union and the States in India's federal structure.

Case Laws: State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara28 (1951)The court applied this doctrine to
ascertain the true nature of legislation when dealing with overlapping entries in different lists.

• Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: The doctrine of prospective overruling is a legal

Doctrine that allows a court to declare a change in the law but limit the effects of that change
to future cases, not affecting past decisions. This doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the
Indian Constitution but has been recognized and applied by the Indian judiciary. Prospective
overruling is often invoked when a court believes that a previous decision needs to be
overturned, but it wants to mitigate the potential unfairness or disruption that may result from
retroactive application. This doctrine allows for a more gradual and considered
implementation of legal change. The Supreme Court of India has, in certain cases, employed
the doctrine of prospective overruling. The court makes it clear that its decision will apply
only to cases arising after a specified date, providing parties with a reasonable time to adjust
their conduct or legal positions. While not a frequent practice, the use of prospective
overruling reflects the judiciary's awareness of the practical implications and the need to
balance legal certainty with evolving legal interpretations.

Case law: I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab29 (1967)-The court introduced the concept of
prospective overruling, limiting the retroactive effect of judicial decisions.

• Doctrine of Eclipse: The doctrine of eclipse under the Indian Constitution pertains to laws
that were inconsistent with fundamental rights but were not expressly repealed. According to
this doctrine, if a law, which was inconsistent with fundamental rights, existed at the time of
the commencement of the Constitution, but it was not expressly abrogated, it is not dead or
void. Instead, it is considered to be in a state of "eclipse. "The Doctrinesuggests that such a
law can be revived or brought back into operation if and when its inconsistency with

28
State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara(AIR 1951 SC 318)
29
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)

Page: 5663
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

fundamental rights is removed through subsequent constitutional amendments or changes in

the legal landscape. In other words, the law is not erased but is merely in a dormant state until
it aligns with constitutional Doctrines. This doctrine ensures a degree of continuity and avoids
rendering pre-constitutional laws completely void. Courts have used the doctrine of eclipse
to assess the validity of pre-constitutional laws in the context of fundamental rights.

30
Case law: Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M. P. (1955)-The court explained the
doctrine, stating that if a law becomes inconsistent with fundamental rights, it doesn't become
void but is in a state of eclipse.

• Doctrine of Repugnancy: The doctrine of repugnancy under the Indian Constitution deals
with conflicts between laws made by different legislatures, i. e. , the Union Parliament and
the State Legislatures. If there is a direct conflict or inconsistency between a law made by the
Parliament (Union) and a law made by a State Legislature on a subject within the Concurrent
List, the Union law prevails, and the state law becomes void to the extent of repugnancy.

This Doctrine is outlined in Article 254 of the Indian Constitution. There are two clauses:

1. First Provision: If there is a repugnancy between a central law and a state law on a subject
in the Concurrent List, the central law prevails, whether it has received the President's
assent or not.

2. Second Provision: If a state law, with respect to a Concurrent List subject, is inconsistent
with a law made by Parliament that has received the President's assent, the state law will
be void to the extent of repugnancy. This doctrine helps in maintaining the supremacy of
central laws in case of conflicts and ensures uniformity in legislation on matters within the
Concurrent List.

Case law: M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India31 (1979)-The court discussed the doctrine
when determining conflicts between central and state laws.

30
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M. P(AIR 1955 SC 781)
31
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 898)

Page: 5664
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Doctrine of Territorial Jurisdiction: The doctrine of territorial jurisdiction under the Indian
Constitution refers to the legal Doctrine that defines the geographical boundaries within
which a particular court or authority has the authority to adjudicate matters. It specifies the
limits of a court's jurisdiction based on the location where the events or issues in question
occurred. For example, a court in one state would typically have jurisdiction over matters that
arise within its territorial boundaries. However, the concept of territorial jurisdiction can vary
depending on the nature of the case, and specific laws may prescribe rules for determining
jurisdiction in certain situations. This doctrine ensures that legal proceedings are conducted
in a structured manner and within the defined geographical limits, promoting efficiency and
fairness in the administration of justice.

Case law: Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India32 (2004)-The court clarified the
territorial jurisdiction of courts concerning the cause of action.

• Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a common law Doctrine and is not explicitly
mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, it has been recognized and applied by Indian
courts as a part of the broader legal framework.

Under the Indian legal system, including constitutional matters, if a clear and unequivocal
promise is made by a public authority, and another party relies on that promise to their
detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be invoked. Courts may prevent the
authority from going back on its promise to ensure fairness and justice.

While the doctrine itself is not constitutionally grounded, constitutional Doctrines, such as
the right to equality and fairness, may influence its application in cases involving government
actions. The doctrine is more commonly associated with contract and administrative law
rather than constitutional law per se.

32
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254

Page: 5665
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Case law: Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies33 (1968)

The court recognized the doctrine, holding the government bound by its promises if there's
reliance.

• Doctrine of Estoppel Against Government: The doctrine of estoppel against the

government in India is a legal Doctrine that may be invoked in certain circumstances when
the government makes a clear and unequivocal representation or promise, and a person relies
on that representation to their detriment. While not explicitly mentioned in the Indian
Constitution, it is recognized and applied within the legal system. In situations where the
government, its officials, or agencies make a specific promise or representation, and an
individual or entity relies on that promise, the doctrine of estoppel may prevent the
government from going back on its representation. The purpose is to ensure fairness and
prevent injustice when individuals act in reliance on the government's assurances. It's
important to note that invoking estoppel against the government is subject to certain
limitations and conditions. Courts will consider factors such as the nature of the
representation, the reliance of the party involved, and whether enforcing the estoppel aligns
with public interest and statutory provisions. While the doctrine operates within the legal
framework, its application against the government is nuanced and subject to specific facts
and legal considerations in each case.

Case law: Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd33(1968)- The court discussed the
limited application of estoppel against the government.

• Doctrine of Absolute Liability: the concept is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian
Constitution but has been recognized and applied by the judiciary to address environmental
concerns and ensure the protection of citizens' rights to a healthy environment. Under the
doctrine of absolute liability, even if an entity takes all possible precautions, it remains liable
for any damage resulting from its hazardous activities. This strict liability framework
underscores the responsibility of industries involved in dangerous operations to prevent harm
to the environment and the public. This Doctrine aligns with constitutional provisions,

33
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718)

Page: 5666
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

particularly Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the
right to a healthy environment. The doctrine reflects the judiciary's commitment to
environmental protection and ensuring that industries prioritize safety to prevent harm to the
public and the ecosystem.

Case law: M. C. Mehta v. Union of India34 (1986)- The court applied the doctrine in
environmental matters, holding industries absolutely liable for environmental damage.

• Doctrine of In Pari Delicto: The doctrine of in pari delicto, though not explicitly stated in
the Indian Constitution, finds application in Indian legal Doctrines. In pari delicto, meaning
"in equal fault," is a common law doctrine that suggests that a court should not intervene
when both parties in a dispute are equally at fault or have engaged in wrongdoing. Indian
courts may apply this doctrine in situations where both parties are involved in illegal or
improper activities, and enforcing claims or providing relief would be contrary to public
policy or Doctrines of justice. However, the application of the doctrine is nuanced, and courts
consider the specific circumstances of each case before deciding whether to apply it. While
the doctrine of in pari delicto is not directly tied to the Indian Constitution, its application
aligns with broader legal Doctrines and considerations of fairness and equity within the
Indian legal system.

35
Case law: Sita ram v radhabai (1979) -The court invoked the doctrine when parties are
equally at fault, denying relief to either.

• Doctrine of Eminent Domain: The doctrine of eminent domain under the Indian
Constitution grants the government the authority to acquire private property for public use,
subject to certain conditions and constitutional safeguards. The relevant constitutional
provision is found in Article 300A. Article 300A of the Indian Constitution states that no
person shall be deprived of his or her property save by the authority of law. This constitutional
provision recognizes the importance of protecting private property rights but also allows the
government to acquire private property for public purposes. The Doctrines of eminent domain

34
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 965)
35
Sita ram v Radhabai (AIR 1968 SC 534)

Page: 5667
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

in India involve fair compensation to the property owner, a legitimate public purpose for the
acquisition, and adherence to due process of law. Additionally, various statutes, such as the
Land Acquisition Act, provide specific procedures and criteria for land acquisition. Eminent
domain is thus a constitutionally sanctioned power that balances the government's authority
to acquire property for public use with the protection of individual property rights.

Case law: K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka36 (2011)- The court referred to the
doctrine concerning the state's power to acquire private property for public use.

• Doctrine of Election: The doctrine of election, in the context of the Indian Constitution,
typically pertains to situations where an individual is presented with two conflicting rights or
positions and is required to choose between them. This doctrine is often applied in electoral
matters, and it means that a person cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same legal
position. For example, if a person contests an election on two seats and wins both, they must
choose one seat to represent. They cannot hold both seats simultaneously. This doctrine is
designed to ensure clarity, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of the
electoral process. While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the doctrine of
election, its Doctrines have been recognized and applied by Indian courts in various legal
contexts, including electoral disputes. The goal is to avoid situations where an individual
benefits unfairly from conflicting legal positions.

Case law: Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI (2003)37- The court applied the doctrine when
individuals must choose between inconsistent remedies.

• Doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis: The doctrine of noscitur a sociis, a Latin term meaning "it is
known by its associates," is a Doctrine of statutory interpretation. In the context of the Indian
Constitution, this doctrine is used to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase by considering
the company it keeps within a particular provision or statute. When a word or term is unclear
or ambiguous, the doctrine of noscitur a sociis allows courts to interpret it in light of the
surrounding words, phrases, or context. By considering the context in which a particular term

36
K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1]
37
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI [(2003) 5 SCC 257]

Page: 5668
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

is used, the court aims to discern the intended meaning based on the association of terms
within the legal provision. This Doctrine is part of the broader approach to statutory
interpretation applied by courts in India to understand legislative intent and ensure a cohesive
interpretation of statutory language. It helps prevent isolated definitions and promotes a more
harmonious understanding of the law.

Case law: State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George38 (1965)-The court applied the
doctrine to interpret words in conjunction with associated words in a statute.

• Doctrine of Progressive Realization: The doctrine of progressive realization is often

associated with economic, social, and cultural rights, emphasizing the incremental and
sustained efforts by states to gradually improve and fulfill these rights over time. While not
explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, this concept has been acknowledged and
applied in the context of socio-economic rights. In the Indian constitutional framework, the
Directive Doctrines of State Policy, particularly those under Part IV of the Constitution,
encompass several socio-economic rights. These Doctrines are considered fundamental in the
governance of the country and provide guidance to the state in shaping policies for the welfare
of the people. The doctrine of progressive realization recognises that certain socio-economic
rights, such as the right to education, health, and adequate standard of living, may require
gradual efforts due to resource constraints. It acknowledges that states may need time to
implement policies and allocate resources progressively to achieve the full realization of these
rights. Courts may consider the state's commitment to making consistent and genuine efforts
over time when evaluating the fulfillment of socio-economic rights. This approach recognizes
the challenges in achieving immediate and complete realization while emphasizing the state's
duty to continually work towards the improvement of these rights.

39
Case law: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)-The court applied the
doctrine in the context of economic and social rights, recognizing the state's duty of
progressive realization.

38
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
39
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180)

Page: 5669
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness: The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, as established

by the Indian judiciary, particularly in the context of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution,
holds that any law or government action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory
would be violative of the right to equality. Under Article 14, which guarantees the right to
equality before the law, the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness provides a basis for challenging
laws or government decisions that lack a reasonable or rational basis. If a law or action is
found to be arbitrary and devoid of any intelligible differentia, it could be struck down as
unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of India, in various judgments, has emphasized that the concept of
arbitrariness includes not just procedural arbitrariness but also substantive arbitrariness. This
means that the substance or content of a law or action should be fair, just, and not arbitrary.

The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness serves as a safeguard against arbitrary state actions,
ensuring that laws and decisions are based on reason and have a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved.

Case law: Shayara Bano v. Union of India40 (2017)-The court discussed the doctrine
concerning arbitrariness in laws, striking down the practice of triple talaq.

• Doctrine of Reverse Discrimination: The term "reverse discrimination" is not explicitly

used in the Indian Constitution. However, the concept of affirmative action or positive
discrimination is present in the constitutional framework, particularly under Articles 15(4)
and 16(4). These articles allow the state to make special provisions for the advancement of
socially and educationally backward classes, as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. The objective is to address historical disadvantages and promote equal
opportunities for marginalized communities. While affirmative action is intended to correct
historical injustices and promote social justice, the term "reverse discrimination" is
sometimes used to refer to concerns raised by individuals who argue that they may face
discrimination based on their caste or social background in the context of reservations or
affirmative action policies. It's important to note that the intent behind affirmative action

40
Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1]

Page: 5670
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

in the Indian context is to promote social equity and inclusion rather than to discriminate
against any particular group. The Constitution aims to strike a balance between providing
opportunities to historically marginalized communities and ensuring fairness for all
citizens.

Case law: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India41 (1992)-The court upheld reservations while
emphasizing the need for backwardness as a criteria.

These Doctrines and associated legal precedents offer profound insights into the nuanced
Doctrines guiding constitutional interpretation and application in India.

• Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, also

known as legislative supremacy, is a Doctrine derived from the British constitutional system,
but it doesn't hold the same absolute authority in India as it does in the United Kingdom. In
the Indian context, parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the constitutional framework.

Under the Indian Constitution: Supremacy of the Constitution( Article 245), Judicial Review,
Basic Structure Doctrine. While Parliament in India has significant legislative powers, the
Constitution is the supreme law, and the judiciary has the authority to review and strike down
laws inconsistent with constitutional provisions. This marks a departure from the absolute
parliamentary sovereignty seen in the United Kingdom

42
Case law: Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965)- The court upheld the
supremacy of the legislature within the bounds set by the Constitution.

• Doctrine of Federalism: India follows a quasi-federal system where there is a distribution

of powers, but there is also a strong centralizing tendency. he federal features of the Indian
Constitution can be Distribution of PowersResiduary Powers Single Citizenship Integrated
Judiciary Emergency Provisions While the Indian Constitution is federal in structure, the
emphasis on a strong central government and the ability to shift powers during emergencies
provides it with a unitary flavor. This unique blend is often described as "cooperative

41
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)
42
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly (AIR 1965 All 349)

Page: 5671
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

federalism" or "quasi-federalism," where cooperation between the Union and the states is
essential for effective governance.

Case law: State of Karnataka v. Union of India43 (1977)-The court clarified the allocation of
powers between the central and state governments.

• Doctrine of Territorial Nexus: the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus says that laws made by a
state apply within that state unless there's a strong connection between the state and the
matter. This Doctrine is backed by Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, stating that for a
state law to extend beyond its borders, there needs to be a clear link between the subject and
the state

Case law: State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala44 (1957)- The court emphasized the
necessity of a reasonable connection between a law and the territory it governs.

Case law: Union of India Vs. H. S. Dhillon (1971) 45- The court emphasized that there must
be a nexus between the law and the territory it seeks to govern.

Case Law: Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2006)46 - Courts should consider
the law and its emphasized the need for reasonable ties with the regions it seeks to govern.

• Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: The doctrine of prospective overruling in the Indian

legal context involves a court declaring a legal rule unconstitutional but limiting the effect of
its decision to future cases. This approach aims to ensure a smooth transition, avoiding
retroactive implications that could disrupt settled matters while still addressing constitutional
concerns. The doctrine is applied cautiously, typically in cases where a sudden change might
cause undue hardship or injustice.

Case law: I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab 47(1967)-The court introduced the concept of

43
State of Karnataka v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 68)
44
State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala (AIR 1957 SC 699)
45
Union of India Vs. H. S. Dhillon (AIR 1972 SC 1061)
46
Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2006) 7 SCC 241
47
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab(AIR 1967 SC 1643)

Page: 5672
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

prospective overruling, limiting the retroactive impact of judicial decisions.

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The doctrine of legitimate expectation, though not

explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, has evolved through judicial decisions as a
part of administrative law Doctrines. This doctrine is based on the idea that individuals have
a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly and reasonably by public authorities, and they can
challenge decisions that violate this expectation. Key elements of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation Promise or Representation, Legitimate Expectation, Fairness and
Reasonableness. The doctrine of legitimate expectation acts as a check on the arbitrary
exercise of administrative power. Courts in India have recognized and applied this doctrine,
emphasizing the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and good governance in
administrative actions. While not an absolute right, legitimate expectation provides
individuals with a basis to challenge administrative decisions that deviate from established
promises or practices.

48
Case law: B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A. P. (2005)-The court affirmed that individuals
have a legitimate expectation of fair and reasonable treatment by public authorities.

These doctrines, as delineated through judicial decisions, serve as foundational Doctrines

guiding the interpretation and application of the Constitution in India.

In the realm of state and union relations within the Indian constitutional framework, specific
doctrines might not bear designated names. However, judicial interpretations have
established essential Doctrines shaping this relationship. The following Doctrines, along with
pertinent case laws, underscore key aspects:

• Doctrine of Federal Supremacy: the Indian Constitution does not explicitly incorporate the
Doctrine of federal supremacy in the same way it is often understood in some other federal
systems. Instead, the Constitution of India provides for a system where certain powers are
distributed between the central government (Union) and state governments, and each operates
within its defined sphereWhile the Constitution establishes the supremacy of the Constitution

48
B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A. P. (AIR 1986 SC 120)

Page: 5673
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

itself (Article 245), it does not explicitly endorse the idea of federal supremacy as understood
in some other federal systems. The Indian Constitution maintains a balance between federal
and unitary features, often described as quasi-federal or cooperative federalism, with the
emphasis on cooperation between the Union and the states. The Doctrine of federal
supremacy is, therefore, nuanced in the Indian constitutional context.

Case law: State of West Bengal v. Union of India49 (1963)- The court affirmed the Union's
supremacy in matters of national importance, upholding federal supremacy.

• Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Legislative Powers: While the Indian Constitution does not
explicitly mention the doctrine of non-delegation, the judiciary in India has recognized the
importance of preventing excessive delegation and has imposed certain limits on the extent
to which legislative powers can be delegated. Courts often scrutinize delegation provisions
to ensure that essential legislative policies and Doctrines are laid down by the legislature
itself, and that any delegated authority operates within these parameters. The doctrine of non-
delegation of legislative powers is a constitutional Doctrine that limits the ability of one
branch of government to delegate its legislative authority to another. In the context of
democratic governance, it ensures that the power to make laws, a core function of the
legislature, is exercised directly by elected representatives rather than being delegated to
administrative bodies or other entities.

50
Case law: HamdardDawakhana v. Union of India (1960)-The court emphasized that
essential legislative functions cannot be delegated, maintaining a check on delegation.

• Doctrine of Intergovernmental Immunity: In summary, while the Indian Constitution does

not explicitly employ the term "intergovernmental immunity," its provisions regarding the
distribution of legislative powers and mechanisms for dispute resolution serve to establish
the boundaries and autonomy of the Union and the States within their respective spheres. The
specific legal Doctrines related to intergovernmental relations may be addressed through
constitutional interpretation and judicial decisions. While the lists(union,state,concurrent)

49
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241)
50
HamdardDawakhana v. Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 554)

Page: 5674
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

provide a framework for the distribution of powers, there is no strict doctrine of

intergovernmental immunity as seen in some other federal systems. Instead, the Constitution
includes provisions related to the adjudication of disputes between the Union and the States
(Article 131) and empowers the Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List under
certain circumstances, such as during a state of emergency.

Case law: Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd51. (1986)-The court discussed the need for
intergovernmental immunity, preventing interference by one level of government with the
legitimate activities of another.

• Doctrine of Non-arbitrariness in Distribution of Resources: While not explicitly labeled

as a "doctrine," the principles of non-arbitrariness and fairness in the distribution of resources
are integral to the constitutional framework and are enforced through constitutional
provisions and judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of non-arbitrariness in the distribution of
resources under the Indian Constitution is associated with the principles of equality and non-
discrimination. While there might not be an explicit "doctrine" with this label, constitutional
provisions and judicial interpretations emphasize the importance of fairness and non-
arbitrariness in matters related to resource allocation, especially in the context of economic
and social justice. key elements Right to Equality (Article 14) Directive Principles of State
Policy (Part IV) Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 15 and 16) Judicial Interpretation

Case law: State of Karnataka v. Union of India52 (2018)-The court addressed issues related
to the fair distribution of resources, emphasizing the need for non-arbitrary allocation.

• Doctrine of Non-interference in Federal Structure: However, the constitutional scheme

contains provisions and principles that aim to strike a balance between the powers of the
Union (central government) and the States, promoting cooperative federalism while
respecting the autonomy of both levels of government.

Key aspects related to non-interference or cooperative federalism Distribution of Legislative

51
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. (AIR 1987 SC 1802)
52
State of Karnataka v. Union of India(https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/184643822/)

Page: 5675
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Powers Residuary Powers Emergency Provisions Inter-State Council (Article 263)

Distribution of Financial Resources

Case law: State of Rajasthan v. Union of India 53(1977)-The court emphasized the Doctrine
of non-interference in the federal structure, ensuring autonomy for both the center and states.

• Doctrine of Residuary Powers: The doctrine of residuary powers under the Indian
Constitution deals with matters that are not explicitly allocated to either the Union (central
government) or the States in the three lists (Union List, State List, and Concurrent List)
provided in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Residuary powers refer to those powers
that are not enumerated in these lists and are, therefore, residual or residual to them. Article
248 of the Indian Constitution explicitly provides for residuary powers. It states that the
Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws on any matter not enumerated in the
Concurrent List or State List. Entry 97 in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule is the
residuary entry, and it grants the Parliament the power to legislate on any matter not
enumerated in the list.

Exclusive Legislative Power Flexibility Judicial Interpretation

In summary, the doctrine of residuary powers ensures that legislative authority is not
hampered by omissions in the specific lists, providing the Union Parliament with the power
to legislate on matters not allocated to the States or the Union in other parts of the
Constitution.

54
Case law: Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna and Sons (1942)-The court
discussed the exclusive nature of residuary powers vested in the central government.

• Doctrine of Emergency Powers: The Constitution envisages three types of emergencies:

National Emergency (Article 352)

53
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)
54
Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna and Sons(1941) 2 MLJ 607

Page: 5676
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

- Declared when the security of India or any part thereof is threatened by war, external
aggression, or armed rebellion.

- During a National Emergency, the President can issue orders that may be contrary to the
normal constitutional provisions. The Union can assume more extensive powers over the
States.

State Emergency (President's Rule) (Article 356)

- If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a state or otherwise, is satisfied
that the governance in a state cannot be carried out according to the provisions of the
Constitution, the President can assume direct control or declare President's Rule.

- During President's Rule, the Governor's powers and the state government's powers are
either suspended or exercised by the President or those appointed by the President.

Financial Emergency (Article 360)

- Declared when the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened.

- During a Financial Emergency, the President can issue directions for the reduction of
salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in the Union or a State, including
judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

These emergency provisions are designed to address critical situations and ensure that the
government has the necessary powers to respond effectively. However, these powers are subject
to constitutional limitations and safeguards to prevent misuse. The declaration and continuation of
emergencies are subject to parliamentary approval and judicial review. The framers of the
Constitution included these provisions with the understanding that they would be invoked
sparingly and only in extreme circumstances.

Case law: State of Rajasthan v. Union of India55 (1977)-The court discussed the impact of

55
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)

Page: 5677
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

emergency powers on the usual federal distribution of powers.

While these doctrines may lack distinct names, they embody legal Doctrines guiding the intricate
relationship between the union and states in the Indian constitutional framework.

The following doctrines pertaining to tribunals under the Indian Constitution, accompanied by
relevant case laws, have been established:

• Independence of Tribunals Doctrine: The doctrine of independence of tribunals under the

Indian Constitution is essential to ensure impartiality and fairness in their functioning. It
emphasizes that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, should operate independently of
executive or legislative influence to uphold the principles of justice and rule of law. This
independence is crucial for maintaining the separation of powers and safeguarding the rights
of individuals. Various constitutional provisions and judicial decisions contribute to
reinforcing this doctrine in the Indian legal framework. The independence of tribunals under
the Indian Constitution is safeguarded by various articles. Article 50 emphasizes the
separation of the judiciary from the executive, promoting independence. Article 14 ensures
equality before the law, a principle crucial for tribunal proceedings. Articles 136 and 227
grant the Supreme Court and High Courts the power of superintendence over tribunals,
further ensuring their accountability. Additionally, the doctrine draws support from judicial
decisions, reinforcing the significance of an impartial and autonomous tribunal system.

56
Case law: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)-The court affirmed that tribunals
exercising judicial powers should possess the same independence as the judiciary.

• Natural justice doctrine : The doctrine of natural justice under the Indian Constitution is
rooted in principles of fairness and equity. Articles 14 and 21 emphasize the right to equality
and the protection of life and personal liberty, respectively. These articles contribute to the
application of natural justice in legal proceedings. The principles of audialterampartem (hear
the other side) and nemojudex in causasua (no one should be a judge in his own cause) are
integral to natural justice, ensuring a fair and unbiased adjudication process. Courts in India

56
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125)

Page: 5678
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

consistently uphold these principles, underscoring the importance of a just and equitable legal
system.

Case law: A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India57 (1970)- The court underscored the Doctrines of
natural justice, asserting that administrative tribunals must adhere to these Doctrines in their
proceedings.

• Tribunal Jurisdiction Doctrine: The Tribunal Jurisdiction Doctrine under the Indian
Constitution underscores the importance of clearly defined and limited powers for tribunals.
It aims to prevent encroachment on the jurisdiction of other entities and maintain a balance
of powers. Articles 136 and 227 provide the Supreme Court and High Courts with supervisory
authority over tribunals, ensuring they operate within their specified jurisdiction. This
doctrine is reinforced by judicial decisions that stress the need for tribunals to adhere to their
prescribed roles, promoting a structured and lawful administrative adjudication system in
India.

Case law: Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao58 (1953)-The court
highlighted the importance of tribunals operating within the limits of their jurisdiction and
not exceeding the authority granted by law.

• Expertise Doctrine: The Expertise Doctrine under the Indian Constitution recognizes the
specialized knowledge and competence of tribunals in dealing with specific areas of law. It
implies that certain matters are best adjudicated by tribunals with expertise in the relevant
field, ensuring informed decision-making. This doctrine is reflected in Article 323-A and
323-B, which empower the Parliament and state legislatures to establish tribunals for specific
subjects. By entrusting such tribunals with specialized matters, the Expertise Doctrineseeks
to enhance the quality and efficiency of adjudication, acknowledging the technical nuances
involved in certain legal domains.

59
Case law: Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980)-The court acknowledged the

57
A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
58
Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao(AIR 1953 SC 210)
59
Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India(AIR 1980 SC 820)

Page: 5679
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

specialized nature of certain tribunals and the necessity for members with expertise in those
fields.

• Tribunal Review Doctrine: The Tribunal Review Doctrine under the Indian Constitution
involves the process by which decisions of tribunals can be reviewed. While tribunals operate
independently, their decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure legality and fairness.
Articles 226 and 227 grant High Courts the power to review tribunal decisions, while Article
136 allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals. This doctrine emphasizes the constitutional
safeguards to prevent arbitrariness and secure the rights of individuals, maintaining a balance
between the autonomy of tribunals and the need for oversight to uphold the rule of law.

Case law: State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam60 (2006)-The court discussed the scope
and limitations of judicial review of tribunal decisions, emphasizing that courts should not
interfere unless there is a manifest error.

• Tribunal Autonomy Doctrine: The Tribunal Autonomy Doctrine under the Indian
Constitution underscores the importance of granting tribunals a degree of independence in
their functioning. While subject to judicial review, tribunals are designed to operate with a
certain level of autonomy to ensure impartiality and efficiency. This doctrine recognizes that
tribunal members need independence in decision-making to fulfill their quasi-judicial roles
effectively. Constitutional provisions and statutes establish the framework for tribunal
autonomy, balancing their independence with mechanisms for accountability to maintain the
rule of law and protect individuals' rights within the Indian legal system.

Case law: Union of India v. R. Gandhi61 (2010)-The court stressed that tribunals, subject to
judicial review, should have a degree of autonomy in decision-making within their statutory
framework.

• Non-Delegation of Essential Functions Doctrine: In the Indian constitutional context, the

Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Essential Functions emphasizes that certain essential

60
State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam (AIR 1977 SC 2411)
61
Union of India v. R. Gandhi [(2010) 11 SCC 1]

Page: 5680
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

functions, particularly those vested with constitutional authorities or bodies, should not be
unduly delegated to others. While the Constitution allows for the delegation of powers for
practical administrative purposes, essential functions that are fundamental to the
constitutional framework should remain within the authority originally designated.

This doctrine contributes to maintaining the balance of powers and ensuring that critical
functions, especially those integral to constitutional bodies, are not arbitrarily transferred to
other entities. The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting and upholding this doctrine,
preventing excessive delegation that may undermine the constitutional framework and the
principles of separation of powers.

Case law: B. S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab62 (1953)-The court discussed that tribunals should
not abdicate essential decision-making powers to others and must perform their functions
independently.

• Rule Against Bias Doctrine: The Rule Against Bias Doctrine under the Indian Constitution
emphasizes the fundamental principle that justice should not only be done but should also be
seen to be done. It ensures that those responsible for making decisions, whether in the
judiciary or administrative bodies, remain impartial and free from any form of bias.

This doctrine is rooted in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to
equality before the law and the protection of life and personal liberty. It is also upheld through
judicial decisions, reinforcing the importance of unbiased decision-making in all facets of the
legal system. The Rule Against Bias Doctrine is vital for maintaining public trust in the justice
system and administrative processes, reflecting the broader commitment to fairness and
justice under the Indian constitutional framework.

Case law: M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India 63(1992)-The court emphasized that members
of tribunals should be impartial, and the rule against bias should be strictly adhered to.

62
B. S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab(https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/446121/)
63
M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India(AIR 1993 SC 1407)

Page: 5681
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Tribunal Consistency Doctrine: The Tribunal Consistency Doctrine under the Indian
Constitution underscores the importance of consistency and uniformity in the decisions and
functioning of tribunals. It implies that similar cases should be decided similarly, promoting
fairness and predictability in legal outcomes.

This doctrine aligns with the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution,
emphasizing that similarly situated individuals should be treated alike. It also contributes to
the overall goal of upholding the rule of law by ensuring that decisions of tribunals are not
arbitrary and that legal principles are applied consistently across cases.

While tribunals operate with a degree of autonomy, the Tribunal Consistency Doctrine
reinforces the need for a systematic and principled approach in their decision-making
processes within the constitutional framework.

64
Case law: Sant Lal v. Union of India (2007)-The court highlighted the importance of
tribunals maintaining consistency in their decisions, treating similar cases in a similar
manner.

• Tribunal Accountability Doctrine: The Tribunal Accountability Doctrine under the Indian
Constitution emphasizes the need for tribunals to be accountable in their actions and
decisions. While tribunals operate with a degree of independence to ensure impartiality, this
doctrine recognizes the importance of mechanisms to hold them accountable. key aspects
Judicial Review, Reporting Mechanisms, Legislative Oversight, Code of Conduct. The
Tribunal Accountability Doctrine aims to strike a balance between the autonomy required for
effective functioning and the need for accountability to uphold the rule of law within the
Indian legal system.

Case law: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. 65(2016)-The court emphasized
transparency and accountability in the functioning of tribunals to ensure public confidence.

64
Sant Lal v. Union of India [(1996) 222 ITR 375 P H]
65
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power ltd( https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/196582635/)

Page: 5682
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Rule of Law Doctrine: The Rule of Law Doctrine under the Indian Constitution is a
foundational principle that ensures equality, fairness, and justice in the legal system. It
signifies that every individual, regardless of status, is subject to the law, and all actions must
be in accordance with established laws and procedures. key aspects Equality before the Law
(Article 14), Protection of Personal Liberty (Article 21), Judicial Review, Legal
Transparency. The Rule of Law Doctrine is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution,
upholding the principles of justice, accountability, and the protection of individual rights
within the legal framework.

Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India66 (1978)-The court broadened the interpretation
of the right to life and personal liberty, stressing the need for fair and reasonable laws and
procedures.

• Constitutionalism Doctrine: Constitutionalism under the Indian Constitution refers to the

adherence to constitutional principles and the supremacy of the constitution in governing the
country. It encompasses several key elementsSupremacy of the Constitution, Separation of
Powers, Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights (Part III), Judicial Review, Directive Principles of
State Policy (Part IV), Constitutionalism in the Indian context reinforces the idea that
governmental authority is not absolute and must operate within the framework established by
the Constitution to safeguard individual rights and promote justice.

67
Case Law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)-The court highlighted the
concept of constitutionalism, asserting that governmental actions must align with
constitutional Doctrines.

• Res Judicata Doctrine: The Res Judicata Doctrine under the Indian legal system is a
principle that prohibits the same matter from being re-litigated once it has been finally
adjudicated by a competent court. The doctrine is based on the idea that there should be
finality and certainty in legal proceedings. Key components of the Res Judicata Doctrine
include Matter in Issue, Final Adjudication, Same Parties, Same Cause of Action Res Judicata

66
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
67
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala(AIR 1973 SC 1461)

Page: 5683
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

serves the interest of justice by preventing endless litigation on the same issues, ensuring that
once a matter has been determined, it cannot be reopened repeatedly. This doctrine promotes
judicial efficiency, consistency, and the conclusive resolution of legal disputes in the Indian
legal system.

Case Law: Sathyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. deorajin debi68 (1960)-The court discussed the
doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing the conclusiveness of legal decisions and preventing the
re-litigation of the same matter.

• Administrative Law Doctrine: The Administrative Law Doctrine under the Indian
Constitution encompasses principles and rules that regulate the actions and decisions of
administrative agencies. Key elements of this doctrine includeRule of Law, Natural Justice,
Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights,Reasonableness and Non-Arbitrariness, Right to
Information (RTI) The Administrative Law Doctrine ensures accountability, fairness, and
legality in the exercise of administrative powers, maintaining a balance between
governmental authority and the protection of individual rights under the Indian constitutional
framework.

Case Law: Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner69 (1978)-The court
addressed Doctrines of administrative law, particularly in the context of electoral matters.

• These Doctrines, as delineated through judicial pronouncements, contribute significantly to

the legal framework governing internal regulations and governance within a country.

While explicit doctrines in the context of India's foreign relations may be absent, the country's
approach to international affairs is guided by legal Doctrines and pivotal decisions. Here are
key Doctrines with relevant case laws associated with India's foreign relations.

• Panchsheel Doctrine: The Panchsheel Doctrine is not explicitly derived from the Indian
Constitution; rather, it is a set of principles that originated in the context of international
relations. Panchsheel, meaning "Five Principles," was a set of guiding principles formulated

68
Sathyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. deorajin debi(AIR 1960 SC 941)
69
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851)

Page: 5684
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

during the early years of the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China. These
principles were aimed at fostering peaceful coexistence and diplomatic relations.

The Five Principles of Panchsheel are: Mutual Respect for Territorial Integrity, Mutual Non-
Aggression, Non-Interference in Internal Affairs, Equality and Mutual Benefit, Peaceful
Coexistence while the Panchsheel Principles originated in the context of India-China
relations, they have been recognised and embraced as guiding principles in various
international forums. However, they are not explicitly incorporated into the constitutional
framework of India. The Indian Constitution primarily outlines the domestic legal and
governance structure rather than prescribing specific international relations doctrines.

Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between Tibet Region and India (1954)
This agreement, linked with the Panchsheel Doctrines, reflects India's dedication to peaceful
coexistence and diplomatic relations with neighbouring nations.

• Non-Alignment Doctrine: The Non-Alignment Doctrine is a foreign policy stance that India
adopted during the Cold War era. It was not explicitly derived from the Indian Constitution,
but rather it reflected India's approach to international relations. The doctrine aimed at
maintaining strategic autonomy and not aligning with any major power bloc during the Cold
War. Key features of India's Non-Alignment Doctrine included: Non-Alignment,
Independence, Peaceful Coexistence While the Non-Alignment Doctrine was a crucial aspect
of India's foreign policy for several decades, the geopolitical landscape has evolved since the
end of the Cold War. India's foreign policy has adapted to changing global dynamics, and
while the term "non-alignment" is less prominent today, the principles of an independent and
pragmatic foreign policy continue to guide India's international engagements.

Various instances in international forums. India's non-alignment policy is evidenced through

its independent stance in global affairs, abstaining from alignment with major power blocs
during the Cold War.

• Strategic Autonomy Doctrine: The Strategic Autonomy Doctrine is not explicitly codified
in the Indian Constitution but represents a key principle guiding India's foreign policy. It
emphasizes the nation's commitment to maintaining autonomy and independence in strategic

Page: 5685
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

decision-making on the global stage. This doctrine involvesIndependent Decision-Making,

Strategic Flexibility, National Interest, Multilateralism. While the Strategic Autonomy
Doctrine is not explicitly articulated in the constitution, it reflects the broader principles of
sovereignty, independence, and flexibility that guide India's foreign policy in a dynamic
global environment.

Various diplomatic engagements. This Doctrine underscores India's commitment to

sovereign decision-making based on national interests, free from undue external influence.

• Good Neighborliness Doctrine: The concept of Good Neighborliness is an important

diplomatic principle that guides India's foreign policy, but it is not explicitly outlined in the
Indian Constitution. This doctrine emphasizes cultivating positive and cooperative relations
with neighboring countries based on mutual respect and shared interests. Key aspects of the
Good Neighborliness Doctrine include: Bilateral Cooperation, Conflict Resolution, Regional
Stability, Non-Interference While not a constitutional doctrine, the Good Neighborliness
principle aligns with the broader constitutional values of peace, sovereignty, and cooperation.
It reflects India's commitment to maintaining harmonious relations with its neighbors for the
collective well-being and stability of the region.

India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (2015)-The agreement underscores the

importance of maintaining positive relations with neighboring countries for regional stability
and development.

• Soft Power Doctrine: The concept of Soft Power is not explicitly outlined in the Indian
Constitution but represents a strategic approach to international relations and diplomacy. Soft
Power involves the ability of a country to influence others through cultural, economic, and
diplomatic means rather than through military or coercive methods. Key elements of India's
Soft Power Doctrine include: Cultural Diplomacy, Education and Knowledge Exchange,
Economic Engagement, Diaspora Engagement, International Cooperation While not
explicitly enshrined in the constitution, the Soft Power Doctrine aligns with constitutional
principles by promoting peaceful international relations, cultural exchange, and cooperation

Page: 5686
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

for mutual benefit. It reflects India's commitment to engaging with the world through non-
coercive and collaborative means.

Cultural exchanges, international events. India leverages its cultural influence, including art,
cinema, and education, as a diplomatic tool to enhance its global image.

• Multilateralism Doctrine: The Multilateralism Doctrine is not explicitly outlined in the

Indian Constitution but is a significant aspect of India's foreign policy. Multilateralism
involves engaging with multiple countries or international organizations to address global
challenges and pursue common goals. Key elements of India's approach to multilateralism
include: International Cooperation, Rule-Based Order, Diplomacy and Dialogue, Global
Governance While the Indian Constitution does not specifically address multilateralism,
India's commitment to engaging with the international community through collaborative and
rule-based approaches aligns with the constitutional principles of promoting international
peace, respect for international law, and cooperation for the common good.

India's participation in international organizations (e. g. , United Nations)India engages in

multilateral forums to collectively address global challenges and promote cooperation among
nations.

• Respect for International Law Doctrine: The Respect for International Law Doctrine is not
explicitly delineated in the Indian Constitution, but it is a fundamental aspect of India's
foreign policy. India, as a responsible member of the international community, emphasizes
the importance of respecting and adhering to international law. Key elements of this doctrine
includeTreaty Obligations, Compliance with International Norms, International Institutions,
Peaceful Dispute Resolution,

Case Law: Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India70 (2006)

The case emphasized the importance of adhering to international law and treaties in handling
sensitive foreign policy matters.

70
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India(AIR 2006 SC 3127)

Page: 5687
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• Non-Aggression Doctrine: While the Non-Aggression Doctrine itself is not explicitly stated
in the Indian Constitution, the principles of non-aggression align with the broader
constitutional commitment to peace, sovereignty, and international cooperation. India's
foreign policy has consistently emphasized the importance of resolving disputes through
peaceful means and refraining from aggressive actions. Key aspects related to a Non-
Aggression Doctrine in the context of India's foreign policy include: Peaceful Coexistence,
Diplomacy and Dialogue, International Law, Multilateral Engagement

India's response to various international conflicts. India commits to resolving disputes

through peaceful means and refrains from using force in its foreign relations.

• Diplomatic Immunity Doctrine: Diplomatic immunity in India is not explicitly derived

from the Constitution but is based on international law and treaties. The principle of
diplomatic immunity grants certain legal protections to foreign diplomats, ensuring they can
carry out their duties without fear of harassment or prosecution in the host country.

Key elements of the Diplomatic Immunity Doctrine in India include: Viennas Convention,
Protection of Diplomats, Inviolability of Embassy Premises

Various instances involving diplomatic privileges and immunities. Recognises the immunity
granted to diplomats to ensure the smooth conduct of international relations.

• Reciprocity Doctrine: The Reciprocity Doctrine, while not explicitly stated in the Indian
Constitution, is a principle that is often applied in international relations and diplomacy.
Reciprocity refers to the practice of mutual exchange of rights, privileges, or concessions
between nations. In the context of India's foreign policy, reciprocity plays a role in shaping
diplomatic interactions and agreements.

Key aspects related to the Reciprocity Doctrine in Indian foreign policy include Bilateral
Agreements, Trade Relations, Diplomatic Practices

Bilateral agreements and engagements. Emphasises the Doctrine of mutual exchange and
cooperation, where benefits and obligations are shared in diplomatic relations.

Page: 5688
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• These Doctrines, while not always explicitly labeled as doctrines, shape India's conduct in
the international arena and influence its foreign policy decisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these doctrines collectively contribute to the strength and adaptability of the Indian
Constitution. From the Basic Structure Doctrine, safeguarding the core values of democracy and
fundamental rights, to the Public Trust Doctrine ensuring environmental protection, each doctrine
plays a distinctive role. The judiciary's role in evolving these doctrines underscores the
commitment to justice, equality, and liberty enshrined in the Constitution. As the legal landscape
continues to evolve, these doctrines remain integral to preserving the essence of India's
constitutional framework.

Page: 5689