Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Constitutional/Judicial/Legal Doctrines - Coggle Diagram
Constitutional/Judicial/Legal Doctrines
Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation
Constitution as an organic document, to be interpreted according to the needs of the society in the present
Canada
Doctrine of Empirical Adjudication
Court should not base their verdict on hypothetical situations, but empirical facts only
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
a verdict may be applicable only from the date of verdict e. g. basic structure doctrine is valid from 24th April, 1973
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
Pith means "true nature" or "essence" and substance means the essential nature underlying a phenomenon. Thus, the doctrine of pith and substance relates to finding out the true nature of a statute.
This doctrine is widely used when deciding whether a state is within its rights to create a statute that involves a subject mentioned in Union List of the Constitution. The basic idea behind this principle is that an act or a provision created by the State is valid if the true nature of the act or the provision is about a subject that falls in the State list. The case of State of Bombay v. F N Balsara 1951 illustrates this principle very nicely.
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
This doctrine is based on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In other words, if the constitution does not permit certain provision of legislation, any provision that has the same effect but in a roundabout manner is also unconstitutional
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
This doctrine was brought about to bring harmony between the different lists mentioned in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Different subjects are mentioned in different lists in this schedule.
However, there can be a situation where an entry of one list overlaps with that of another list. This is the time when this doctrine comes into the picture.
It was said that the words of the entries should be given wide amplitude and the courts shall bring harmony between the different entries and lists.
Supreme Court applied this Doctrine in the case of Tika Ramji v the State of UP.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The doctrine states that if any law becomes contradictory to the fundamental rights, then it does not permanently die but becomes inactive.
As soon as that fundamental right is omitted from the Constitution, the inactive law becomes revived.
When a court strikes a part of the law, it becomes unenforceable. Hence, an ‘eclipse’ is said to be cast on it. The law just becomes invalid but continues to exist.
The eclipse is removed when another (probably a higher level court) makes the law valid again or an amendment is brought to it by way of legislation.
Supreme Court first applied this doctrine in the case of Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh where it applied to pre-constitutional law. The extension to the post-constitutional law was stated in the case of Dulare Lodh v. ADJ Kanpur
Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers
This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance.
What it means is that the power to legislate on a subject also includes the power to legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject.
Doctrine of Severability
According to this doctrine, if there is any offending part in a statute, then, only the offending part is declared void and not the entire statute.
Article 13 states that the portion that is invalid should be struck off and not the entire one. The valid part can be kept
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
To determine whether a particular legislation is within the territorial nexus or not, this doctrine is applied.
Doctrine of Laches
Laches means delay. The doctrine of laches is based on the maxim that “equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” (Black’s Law Dictionary).
The outcome is that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party.
Doctrine of Proportionality
The doctrine signifies that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the offence committed or the nature and extent of the State's interference with the exercise of a right must be proportional to the goal it seeks to achieve.
Doctrine of Occupied Field
Doctrine of Occupied Field has nothing to do with the conflict of laws between the state and the centre. It is merely concerned with the ‘existence of legislative power’ whereas repugnance is concerned with the ‘exercise of legislative power’ that is shown to exist.
Doctrine of Occupied Field simply refers to those legislative entries of State List, which are expressly made ‘subject’ to a corresponding Entry in either the Union List or the Concurrent List.
Doctrine of Repugnancy
Article 254 of the Constitution of India that firmly entrenches the Doctrine of Repugnancy in India. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Repugnancy could be defined as “an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument (such as a statute or a contract)”.
http://www.desikanoon.co.in/search/label/constitutional%20doctrines
Doctrine of Mutuality
The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxed.
Doctrine of Eminent Domain
Doctrine of Eminent Domain is a concept in the American Constitution. It is the acquisition of private property by the state for a public purpose with paying certain amount of compensation. Initially when India got Independence, the legislature to abolish the Zamindari System, enacted various laws through which it took the property from various land holders and used it for public purpose. Many a times mala-fide intention can be seen achieved through this doctrine..
State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh
, Supreme Court defined eminent Domain as “the power of a sovereign to take property for public use without the owner’s consent upon making just compensation.”
Doctrine of Progressive Realisation of Rights
"Progressive Realisation of Rights" doctrine was given by Supreme Court in one of its judgement which decriminalised homosexuality. The five-judge Constitution Bench introduced the “Doctrine of Progressive Realisation of Rights” to guard against future attempts to reintroduce that part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which had made the entire LGBTQ community “unconvicted felons” without the basic rights of a citizen for over a century. Using this legal doctrine, the SC has held that once a right is recognised and given to the public, it cannot be taken back by the state at a later date. Once a step is taken forward, there is no going back. "In a progressive and an ever-improving society, there is no place for retreat or regression. The society has to march ahead", the Bench held.