LEGAL DOCTRINES USED IN INDIA: -

• Doctrine Of Basic Structure:-

According to the constitution the parliament and state legislature can make laws within their
jurisdiction. The power to amend the constitution is only with parliament and not the state
legislature. However this power of the parliament is not absolute, the supreme court has the power
to declare any law that it finds unconstitutional void. As per basic structure doctrine any amendment
that tries to change the basic structure of the constitution is invalid.

There is no mention of the term ‘Basic structure’ anywhere in the Indian constitution. The idea that
parliament cannot introduce laws that would amend the basic structure of the constitution evolved
gradually over the time through many judicial pronouncement. The idea is to preserve the nature of
Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of people. The doctrine helps to protect and
preserve the spirit of the constitution.

In Keshavananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala the supreme court by a special bench of 13 judges
introduced the doctrine of basic structure and it held that the parliament has wide powers of
amending the constitution and it extends to all the articles but amending power is not unlimited and
does not include the power to destroy or abrogate the ‘basic feature’ or ‘framework’ of the
constitution.

The basic structure of the constitution is built on the basic foundation i.e. the freedom and dignity of
the individual ; the basic structure of the constitution consist following features :

a. Supremacy of the constitution

b. Republican and democratic form of government
c. Secular and federal character of the constitution
d. Separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary etc.

• Doctrine Of Judicial Review :- The Doctrine of Judicial Review has evolved over the course of
several years, however it is important to understand the genesis of the doctrine. The
concept of Judicial Review was first originated in America, established through the case
of Marbury v. Madison.

The doctrine of Judicial review is basically the power of the judiciary to decide on the constitutional
validity of the acts of the other wings of the government (the executive and the legislative). The
objective is to regulate any such acts which may contravene the constitution. For instance, if any act
of the law making bodies is such that it negates the provisions given in the constitution, it is
important that it should be made null and void. In order to do so an organ is required to have the
force or power to articulate such acts as void.

judicial review is based in Article 13 of the Constitution. It gives the power to the courts to keep the
legislature under preview. The Article gives to the judiciary the power to declare an act or law void if
it is not in consonance with Part III of the Constitution. Additionally, Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution also aid the judiciary in judicial review. If a person's fundamental rights have been
violated by any legislation, then they can move to court under Article 226 and 227.

This power of the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution
was recognized in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. Moreover, in Indira Nehru Gandhi
v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr, the Court declared judicial review to be part of the basic structure of the
Indian Constitution

• Doctrine Of Natural Justice :- The doctrine of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus
Natural’ of the Roman law and it is closely related to Common law and moral principles but
is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution. The
principle of natural justice is adhered to by all the citizens of civilised State with Supreme
importance.

Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a
particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what
matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision.

Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules.

➢ NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA :-“No one should be a judge in his own case” because it leads
to rule of biases. Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or
unconscious stage in relation to the party or a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of
this rule is to make the judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence
recorded as per the case.

➢ AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM :- It simply includes 3 Latin word which basically means that no
person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of
being heard.

➢ REASONED DECISION :- Basically, it has 3 grounds on which it relies:-

1. The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and
revisional court that what was the reason which makes the authority to reject it.
2. It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
3. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by
the judicial power vested in the executive authority
•
Doctrine Of Harmonious construction :- This doctrine is used to avoid any inconsistency
and repugnancy within a section or between a section and other parts of a statute. The rule
follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law, and
should be read as a whole. The interpretation which is consistent with all the provisions and
makes the enactment consistent shall prevail. The doctrine follows a settled rule that an
interpretation that results in injustice, hardship, inconvenience, and anomaly should be
avoided. The interpretation with the closest conformity to justice must be picked.
the objective of harmonious construction is to avoid any confrontation between two
enacting provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way so that the
harmonize. The basis of this rule is that the Legislature never envisages to provide two
conflicting provisions in a statute, for the reason that it amounts to self-contradiction.

The real legislative intent, that we try to discover in the process of interpretation cannot be
to provide for something in one provision and deny the same in subsequent one. Hence,
even if an inconsistency is found, the same should be considered to be unintentional and as
such, is required to be cured by way of harmonious construction.
In Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra the supreme court held that the
conflict between the provisions of two statutes has to be resolved by references to purpose
and policy underlying two enactments. The Court must take into consideration principal
 subject matter of statute and particular perspective in order to determine whether a statute
is special or general one.
• Doctrine Of Eclipse;- the doctrine of eclips is based on the principle that a law which
violates Fundamental rights is not nullity or void ab initio but becomes only unenforceable,
i.e. remains in a moribund condition. It is overshadowed by the fundamental rights and
remains dormant ; but is not dead. Doctrine of eclipse is contained in article 13 (1) of the
Indian constitution.

The apex court formulated the doctrine of eclipse in the landmark case of Bhikhaji vs state of M.P.
where the mp government passed an act in the year 1950 for nationalising the motor transport and
the act was passed before the commencement of the constitution. The statute was challenged by
the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. The central government amended the act
enabling the state to nationalise the motor transport. Supreme court held that the statute of
Madhya Pradesh of nationalising the motor transport was cured by 4th amendment act 1955 and
therefore the doctrine of eclipse has been applied and such act is valid.

• Doctrine Of Pith and Substance :- within their respective spheres , the union and the state
legislatures are made supreme and they should not encroach into the sphere reserved to the
other. If a law passed by one encroaches upon the field assigned to the other the court will
apply ‘ The doctrine of pith and substance’ to determine whether the legislature concerned
was competent to make it. If the pith and substance of law i.e. the true object of the
legislation or a statute relates to a matter with the competence of legislature which enacted
it, it should be held to be intra vires even though it might incidentally trench on matters not
within the competence of legislature. In order to ascertain the true character of the
legislation one must have regard to the enactment as a whole to its object and to the scope
and effects of its provisions.

The privy council applied this doctrine in Prafulla kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Khulna in this case
the validity of the Bengal money landers Act 1946 ,which limited the amount and the rate of interest
recoverable by a money-lenders on any loan was challenged on the ground that it was ultra vires of
the Bengal legislature in so far as it is related to ‘promissory notes’ a central subject . the privy
council held that Bengal money lenders act was in pith and substance a law in respect of money
lending and money-lenders a state subject and was even valid even though it trenched incidentally
on promissory note – a central subject .

• Doctrine Of Incidental Or Ancillary Powers :- The doctrine of incidental or ancillary powers

indicates that if a legislative body has the power to legislate on a particular matter, then
they have the power to legislate on ancillary topics related to that matter. Unless that
ancillary topic is mentioned explicitly under the jurisdiction of another legislative body. This
principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance. The legislative powers of
parliament and the state legislatures are mentioned in the seventh schedule of the
constitution. Every such power that is expressly mentioned legislative power carries with it
the incidental or ancillary power which is necessary to execute that power in other words
the incidental and ancillary powers are those powers which are required to be exercised by
the legislatures for the effective exercise off the legislative powers expressly bestowed on
them by the constitution.

According to this doctrine the entries enumerated in the three legislative lists are not to be read in
an arrow or restricted sense and each general word in any entry should be held to all incidental or
ancillary matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended in it. Hence the power to levy
tax would include the power to make provisions for checking tax invasions similarly the power to
legislate with respect to the collection of rent includes the power to legislate to remission of rent.

As held in the case of State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla the power to legislate on a topic includes the
power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the topic.

However, this does not mean that the scope of the power can be extended to any unreasonable
extent. Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against such extended construction. For
example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore SC held that betting and gambling is a state
subject as mentioned in Entry 34 of State list but it does not include power to impose taxes on
betting and gambling because it exists as a separate item as Entry 62 in the same list.

• Doctrine Of Colourable Legislation :- The doctrine of colourable legislation is based upon

the Latin maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”
which states that “ you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.” Basically this
doctrines means that if the constitution distributes the legislative power amongst different
legislative bodies which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by specific
legislative entries or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of
fundamental rights question arises as to whether the legislature in a particular case has or
has not in respect to the subject matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it,
transgressed may be patent, manifest or direct but it may also be disguised covert or
indirect or and it is to letter class of cases that the expression colourable legislation has
been applied applied in judicial pronouncements. If the subject matter in substance is
something which is beyond the powers of that legislature upon the form in which the law
the law is clothed cannot be saved. The legislature cannot violate the constitutional
prohibition by employing indirect method.

State of Bihar vs kameshwar singh is the only case where a law has been declared invalid on the
ground of colourable legislation. In this case Bihar Land Reforms act 1950 was held void on the
ground that through apparently it purported to lay down principle for determining compensation yet
in reality it did not lay down such principle and thus indirectly sought to deprive the petitioner of any
compensation.

• Doctrine Of Severability :- when a part of the statute is declared unconstitutional then a

question arises whether the whole of the statute is to be declared void or only that part
which is unconstitutional should be declared as such. To resolve this problem the supreme
court has revised the doctrine of severability or separability. This doctrine means that if an
offending provision can be separated from that which is constitutional then only that part
which is offending is to be declared void and not the entire statute. Article 13 of the
constitution uses the words “ to the extent of such inconsistency be void” which means that
when some provision of the law is held to be unconstitutional then only the repugnant
provision of the law in question shall be treated by courts as void and not the whole statute.

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of madras the supreme court used this doctrine while declaring section
14 of preventive detention Act 1950 as ultra vires to the act. Also in state of Bombay vs F.N. Balasra
it was held that the provision of Bombay prohibition Act 1949 where the entire act was declared as
void and it did not affect the rest part and there was no need to declare the whole statute void.

• Doctrine Of Territorial Nexus :- The doctrine of territorial nexus is deeply rooted inn laws
of India even before the commencement of the constitution of India in 1950. The
government of India act 1935 , first recognised that the laws of union and the states are
 enforceable in India and od state respectively although this simple generalisation is subject
to the doctrine of territorial nexus. In the post- constitutional era article 245 has made
doctrine of territorial nexus a part of scheme of distribution of legislative powers under
constitution.

Article 254(2) of the constitution makes it amply clear that no law made by parliament shall
be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra- territorial operation. Thus
legislation cannot be questioned on the ground that it has extra-territorial operation. It is
well established that the courts of our country must enforce the law with the machinery
available to them and they are not entitled to question the authority of the legislature in
making a law which is extra – territorial. Extra-territorial operation does not invalidate a law.
But some nexus with india may still be necessary in some cases such as those involving
taxation statutes.

The doctrine of territorial nexus can be invoked under the following circumstances

1. whether a particular state has extra-territorial operation

2. If there is a territorial nexus between the subject- matter of the act and the state making
the law.

Moreover in simple words doctrine of territorial nexus says that law made by a state legislature are
not applicable outside the state except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the In
object.

In State of Bombay vs R.M.D.C. the respondent was not residing in the Bombay but he conducted
competitions with prize money through newspaper printed and published from banglore having a
wide circulation in Bombay. All the essential activities like filing up of the forms entry fees etc for
the competition took place in Bombay. The state govt. sought to levy tax the respondent for carrying
on business in the state . The question for decision before the supreme court was if the respondent
the organiser of the competition could be validly taxed under the act. It was held that there existed a
sufficient territorial nexus to enable the Bombay legislature to tax the respondent as all the activities
which the competitor is ordinarily expected to undertake took place mostly within Bombay.

• Doctrine Of Utmost Good Faith :- The doctrine of utmost good faith, also known by its Latin
name uberrimae fidei, is a minimum standard, legally obliging all parties entering a contract
to act honestly and not mislead or withhold critical information from one another. It applies
to many everyday financial transactions and is one of the most fundamental doctrines
in insurance law.

The doctrine of utmost good faith is a principle used in insurance contracts, legally obliging all
parties to act honestly and not mislead or withhold critical information from one another.

Insurance agents must reveal critical details about the contract and its terms, while
applicants are required to provide honest answers to all the questions fielded to them.

Violations of the doctrine of good faith can result in contracts being voided and sometimes
even legal action.

The doctrine of utmost good faith requires all parties to reveal any information that could
feasibly influence their decision to enter into a contract with one another. In the case of the
insurance market, that means that the agent reveal critical details about the contract and its
terms.
 • Doctrine Of Estoppel:- Estoppel is a rule of equity. According to the doctrine of estoppel
there are certain facts which the parties are prohibited from proving , estoppel is a principle
of law by which a person is held bound by representation made by him or arising out of his
conduct. For example when one person has by his declaration or by his act intentionally
caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and the act upon such
belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between
himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing.

To invoke the doctrine of estoppels, there are three conditions which must be satisfied;

1. Representation by a person to another

2. The other should have acted upon the said representation and

3. Such action should have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the
representation has been made.

However in the case, "Gyarsi Bai vs. Dhansukh Lal,2" it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
even if the first two conditions are fulfilled, but the third is not, then there is no scope to invoke the
doctrine of estoppel.

• Doctrine Of Privity :- The doctrine of privity of a contract is a common law principle which
implies that only parties to a contract are allowed to sue each other to enforce their rights
and liabilities and no stranger is allowed to confer obligations upon any person who is not a
party to contract even though contract the contract have been entered into for his
benefit. The rule of privity is basically based on the ‘interest theory’ which implies that the
only person having an interest in the contract is entitled as per law to protect his rights.

As a general rule only parties to contract are entitled to sue each other, but now with the
passage of time exceptions to this general rule have come, allowing even strangers to
contract to prosecute. These exceptions are

1. A beneficiary under a contract

2. Conduct, Acknowledgement or Admission
3. Provision for maintenance or marriage under family arrangement

• Doctrine Of Res Judicata :- A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal

with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a
matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on
appeal. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality to litigation and to protect parties
from being vexed by the same matter twice.

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a
matter adjudged”.

In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue before a court has already been
decided by another court and between the same parties. Hence, the court will dismiss the case as it
has been decided by another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and criminal legal systems. No
suit which has been directly or indirectly tried in a former suit can be tried again.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Court incorporates the doctrine of res judicata also known as “ rule
of conclusiveness of judgment”.
The doctrine of res judicata says –

➢ That no person should be disputed twice for the same reason.

➢ It is the State that decides there should be an end to a litigation

➢ A judicial decision must be accepted as the correct decision

• Doctrine Of Laches :- The traditional meaning of the word laches is the negligence to follow
one's legal duty. It is derived from the Latin word 'laxare' which is to loosen or by law. In
legalese, laches means failure to assert or observe one's legal right or privilege.

Laches is an equitable doctrine, typically raised as an affirmative defense by a defendant in a civil

dispute, whereby a party may be barred from raising a claim due to an unreasonable delay in
pursuing the claim. Laches is an equitable defense. The doctrine in simple terms says that a plaintiff
cannot seek equitable relief because the plaintiff himself has delayed the time to seek the
relief. What is an equitable relief?
In civil law, the court either offers Legal remedies in the form of damages that is monetary relief or
else offers equitable relief in the forms of injunctions and specific performance. The court offers an
equitable relief only after weighing in the facts of the case to decide upon which relief to give. he
doctrine is based on the Latin maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientius Aequitas Subventil which means
that Equity aids the vigilant, not the ones who sleep over their rights. The doctrine of laches is one
of the few defences available to the defendant in order to receive relief from the court on the basis
that with the passage of time the defendant's case would have become weak. Loss of evidence,
proper testimonials, and even witnesses can hamper the chance of getting a fair trial to the
defendant.

• Doctrine Of Waiver :- doctrine of waiver of right is based on the premise that a person is his
best judge and that he has the liberty to waive the enjoyment the of such right as are
conferred on him by the state .However the person must have the knowledge of his rights
and that the waiver should be voluntary. Fundamental rights occupy important place in the
scheme of basic human rights. So the question arises : can a person waive any of his
fundamental rights ? in u.s.a a fundamental right can be waived.

The fundamental rights were divided in two broad categories : one is rights conferring
benefits on the individuals and the second one is those rights conferring benefits on the
general public. The court repudiated the doctrine of waiver saying that the fundamental
rights were not put in the constitution merely for individual benefit. This rights were there as
a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver could have no application in `case of
fundamental rights, a citizen cannot invite discrimination by telling the state you can
discriminate get convicted by waiving the protection given to him under article 20 and 21.

Basheshar nath vs C.I.T. :- the question of waiver of fundamental rights has been discussed
fully by the supreme court and it held :

Article 14 cannot be waived for it is an admonition to the state as a matter of public policy
with a view to implement its object of ensuring equality.

The fundamental rights are mandatory on the state and no citizen can by his act or conduct,
relieve the state of the solemn obligation imposed on it.
 An individual could waive a fundamental right which was for his benfit but he could not
waive a right which was for the benefit of general public.

• Doctrine of Due Process Of Law :- Due process of law doctrine not only checks if there is a
law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also see if the law made is fair,
just and not arbitrary.

If SC finds that any law as not fair, it will declare it as null and void. This doctrine provides for
more fair treatment of individual rights.

Under due process, it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal
rights that are owed to a person and laws that states enact must conform to the laws of the
land like – fairness, fundamental rights, liberty etc. It also gives the judiciary to access
fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty of any legislation.

In India, a liberal interpretation is made by the judiciary after 1978 and it has tried to make
the term ‘Procedure established by law’ as synonymous with ‘Due process’ when it comes to
protecting individual rights.

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978) SC held that – ‘procedure established by
law’ within the meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of
Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the
same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

• Doctrine of Constitutional Morality:- The phrase ‘constitutional morality’ is a judicial

evolution , and does not find explicit mention within the Constitution

Although not formally recognised as a consistent doctrine, its addition and interpretation facilitated
some of the most important and liberal judgements over the past few years.

Though Constitutional Assembly debates mention constitutional morality, its meaning and
importance are not discussed in as much detail. Even after our Constitution came into force, it found
a passing reference in some cases here and there with no significance. According to dr. Ambedkar
Constitutional morality would mean effective coordination between conflicting interests of different
people and the administrative cooperation to resolve them amicably without any confrontation
amongst the various groups working for the realization of their ends at any cost.

Constitutional morality has been regarded as a paramount reverence for the constitution.

Constitutional morality provides a principled understanding for unfolding the work of governance. It
specifies norms for institutions to survive and an expectation of behaviour that will meet not just the
text but the soul of the Constitution. It also makes the governing institutions and representatives
accountable. Constitional Morality is scarcely a new concept. It is written largely in the Constitution
itself like in the section of Fundamental Rights (Article 12 to 35), Directive Principle of State
Policy (Article 36 to 51), Preamble and fundamental duties.

In keshvananda Bharti case the supreme court restricted the power of the parliament to violate the
basic structure of the constitution.

And in naz foundation case SC opined that only constitutional morality and public morality should
prevail.
• Doctrine Of Merger :- The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the
idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals, the doctrine is
based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one
operative order governing the same subject matter.

Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any
other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms
the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the
decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is
capable of enforcement in the eye of the law.

Thus, for the doctrine of merger to be applicable there must be a decision of a subordinate
court/forum, in respect of which there exists a right of appeal/revision which is duly
exercised, and the superior forum before whom such appeal/revision is preferred must
modify, reverse, and/or affirm the decision of the subordinate court/forum. The
consequence of such modification, reversal, and/or affirmation is that the decision of the
subordinate forum would merge with the decision of the superior forum, which in turn
would be operative and capable of being enforced.

In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. the Supreme Court had the occasion to hold that All
orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this
Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any
court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.

• Doctrine Stare Decisis :- The principle of stare decisis is embedded in latin Maxim ‘stare
decisis et non quieta movere’, firmly entrenched in British system of doctrine of binding
precedent and embodied in Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it provides that the law
declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The
expressions ‘binding’ and ‘on all courts’ is to be discerned as to what is binding and
determined whether the Supreme Court is bound by its own decisions.

‘Stare decisis’ means ‘to stand by decided cases’. India have hierarchy of courts. The
Supreme Court is at the top of pyramid. It decides cases with a seal of finality. The decision is
an authority for what it actually decides. What is of essence in a decision is it ratio, and not
every observation found therein, nor what logically flows from the various observations
made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question
before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.

It is ratio decidendi that is binding, and not casual remarks, something said by the way,
statements on hypothetical fact-situations, or problems, which are passed for as obiter
dicta. The obiter dicta is the incidental question which may arise, indirectly connected with
the main questions, for consideration. Normally even an obiter dictum of Supreme Court is
expected to be obeyed and followed. The observations on unreal questions decided in
personam are not binding as precedent.

• Doctrine Of Public Trust :- The Public Trust Doctrine has its origins in Roman Law. It has
been extended in recent years, placing a duty on the state to hold environmental resources
in trust for the benefit of the public. At its widest, it could be used by the courts as a tool to
protect the environment from many kinds of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine
has formed the basis of environmental policy legislation, allowing private rights of action by
citizens for violations by the state (directly or indirectly) of the public trust. Articles 48A and
 51A of the Constitution also furnish the principles of jurisprudence, which are fundamental
to our governance under the Rule of Law.

The doctrine is first mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath and others where the Indian
Supreme Court applied public trust with regard to the protection and preservation of natural
resources. In this case, the State Government granted lease of riparian forestland to a
private company for commercial purpose. The purpose of the lease was to build a motel at
the bank of the River Beas. A report published in a national newspaper alleged that the
motel management interfered with the natural flow of the river in order to divert its course
and to save the motel from future floods. The Supreme Court initiated suo motu action
based on the newspaper item because the facts disclosed, if true, would be a serious act of
environmental degradation. In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the classic
struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, lakes and
open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who
find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open land.... It stated that the public
bodies should apply public trust doctrine when there is no legislation to protect the natural
resources.
• Doctrine Of Proportionality :- Doctrine of proportionality finds its place in the
Administrative Law and is used at the stage of Judicial Review. The doctrine states that there
must be a reasonable nexus between the desired result and the measures taken to reach
that goal. The action taken must not be shockingly disproportionate to the consciousness of
the court and the said action can then be challenged by way of judicial review.

Lord Diplock in R Vs Goldstein in a bit to explain proportionality said This would indeed be using a
sledge-hammer to crack a nut 'Proportionality' involves a Balancing test which keeps a check on the
excessive or arbitrary punishments or encroachment upon the rights and Necessity test which takes
into account other less restrictive alternates.

The doctrine of proportionality is a European origin. It is imbibed in European Droit Administratif. In

Britain, the Principle of Proportionality has, for so long, been treated as a part of the Wednesbury's
Principle of reasonableness which postulated the basic standard of reasonableness that ought to be
followed by a public body in its decisions. It stated that if a choice is so unreasonable to the point
that no sensible expert could ever take those actions or employ the methods adopted, then such
activities are subject to be liable and quashed through Judicial Review.

In India The Doctrine of Proportionality was adopted in Om Kumar v. Union of India in this case the
disciplinary authority had asked the SC to reconsider the quantum of punishment given to four civil
servants, the court refused to re-consider the quantum of punishment as no principle of law was
violated nor the punishment was “Shockingly Disproportionate” to the mischiefs committed by the
concerned persons. This position of law was crystallised by the Supreme Court itself in later cases.

Hon’ble Chandrachud J. Supreme Court judge in Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment, notes that any
invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three requirements of:

➢ Legality, i.e. there must be a law in existence

➢ Legitimate aim/State interest, which he illustrates as including goals like national security,
proper deployment of national resources, and protection of revenue, social welfare; and

➢ Proportionality of the legitimate aims with the object sought to be achieved. There should
be a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve the object.
 • Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation :- Legitimate Expectation means that a person
may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by
administrative authorities owing to some consistent practice in the past or an
express promise made by the concerned authority. According to this doctrine, a
public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation. The
doctrine of Legitimate Expectation pertains to the relationship between an
individual and a public authority. this doctrine is a form of a check on the
administrative authority. When a representation has been made, the doctrine of
legitimate expectation imposes, in essence, a duty on public authority to act fairly by
taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such legitimate
expectation. It also adds a duty on the public authority not to act in a way to defeat
the legitimate expectation without having some reason of public policy to justify its
doing so. The necessity for application of the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice
or conduct stirred an expectation which would be within its powers to accomplish
unless some superseding public interest comes in the way.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation, based on established practice, can be invoked only by
someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such
established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the
authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings
with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority,
cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a
general obligation to act fairly.

Legitimate expectation may arise :-

a. if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or

b. because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to
continue;

c. such an expectation must be reasonable.

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was firstly discussed in the Indian arena in the case of State
of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai Herein a sanction was issued for the respondents to open a new
aided school and to upgrade the existing schools, however, an Order was issued 15 days later to
keep the previous sanction in abeyance. This Order was challenged by the respondents in lieu of
violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled that the sanction had entitled the
respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order violated principles of natural justice.

• Doctrine Of Rule Of Law :- The doctrine of rule of law has been described as
supremacy of the law. This means that where there is rule of law no person can be
said to be above the law, even the functions and actions of the executive organ of
the state shall be within the ambit of the law.

Rule of law imposes a duty on all citizens in a parliamentary democracy to obey the law and for such
obedience the law itself must be just law and not arbitrary or oppressive law.

A,v. Dicey is known to be the main exponent of the concept of rule of law. However the origin of his
doctrine was attributed to Sir Edward Coke. He introduced for the first time that, ‘King is under God
and the Law.’ The firm base of rule of law owes its exposition to Albert Venn Dicey. Dicey, in his book
Law and Constitution in the year 1885 further developed this concept given by Coke. According to
Dicey’s theory, rule of law has three pillars based on the concept that “a government should be
based on principles of law and not of men”, these are-

➢ Supremacy of Law;

➢ Equality before the Law; and

➢ Predominance of Legal spirit.

Under the Indian constitution the rule of law is incorporated in many of its provisions. For example
the object of achieving equality, liberty and justice are reflected in the Preamble to the Indian
constitution. Article 14 guarantees right to equality before law and equal protection of law. It states
that no one shall be denied the equality before law and the equal protection of the law by the state.
The direct connotation of these words provided under Article 14 is that the law is supreme and there
is no scope of arbitrariness as everybody is governed by the rule of law. Law treats everybody
equally without any biases, which is the basic requirement of Rule of Law. In the case of Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India the Supreme court in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in state actions and ensures fairness and equality in treatment. Rule of law which is the
basic feature of the Indian Constitution excludes arbitrariness. Where there is arbitrariness there is
denial of Rule of Law. Art 15, 16, 23 further strengthened the ideal of equality by the incorporation
of protective discrimination as a means of ensuring equality amongst equals.

• Doctrine Of Fair Use :- Doctrine of Fair use is an exception to the law that would
usually protect any material that would be considered to be copyrighted as under
the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.It is a legal doctrine which permits a person to use
any work which is protected under the Act with limited usage of such work so as to
maintain the sanctity and originality of such work as well as the registered
proprietor of the work.

The meaning of “Fair use” depends on different facts and circumstances. In India, the Court applies
basic common sense so that they can determine as to what can be constituted as Fair Dealing on the
case- to- case basis. Fair dealing is a significant limitation on the exclusive right of the copyright
owner. It has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by judging the economic
impact it has on the copyright owner. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may
constitute fair dealing. The fair nature of the dealing depends on the following four factors:

1. the purpose of use;

2. the nature of the work;

3. the amount of the work used, and

4. the effect of use of the work on the original.

• Doctrine Of Perspective Overruling :- The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

dictates that a decision made in a particular case would have operation only in the
future and will not carry any retrospective effect on any past decisions. Going by the
literal meaning of this terminology, “prospective” is understood as something which
only has a future operation and the term “overrule” connotes setting aside a
precedent or a decision.
The primary intention of courts in applying this Doctrine has been attaining justice as the principle of
retrospective operation robbed an individual of fair trial and conclusion. The Doctrine prescribes the
parameters within which a judicial decision is bound to operate. In simpler words, it provides that
transactions made before a judicial pronouncement will not be termed invalidated following the
change of law.

The Doctrine marked its application in Indian jurisprudence for the first time in the case of I.C. Golak
Nath v. State of Punjab in 1967. J. Subba Rao advocated the application of this Doctrine and insisted
that judicial restraints are called for, given the effect of the withdrawal of these amendments on the
social and economic affairs of our country. He discarded the objections made to this Doctrine by
referring to the elastic and wide terms used in the Indian Constitution enabling the Court to meet
the ends of justice.

Kesvananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala overruled the Golaknath judgement but the Doctrine, as laid
down in the impugned judgement remained intact and found its application in many other Supreme
Court cases in both constitutional and non-constitutional contexts.

• Doctrine Of Ultra Vires :- Doctrine of Ultra Vires means beyond the scope, power or
authority of any company, corporation or statutory body. The term ‘Ultra Vires’
implies absence of capacity or power of the person to do any act. It is not necessary
that an act to be ultra vires must be illegal; it may or may not be. An act is said to be
‘Ultra Vires’ when it is enacted in excess of the legislative power. A rule is Ultra Vires
when it is beyond the rule-making power of the authority. In other words the
doctrine envisages that an authority can exercise only so much power as is
conferred on it by law. An action of the authority is intra vires when it falls within
the limits of the power conferred on it but ultra vires if it goes outside this limit. The
doctrine of ultra vires has two aspects: substantive and procedural.

When a piece of delegated legislation is declared to be ultra vires, it is void and becomes
unenforceable. It cannot affect the rights and duties of any person. Until a rule is declared invalid by
a court, it is presumed to be valid. If the valid and the invalid parts of a rule can be severed, only
then the invalid portion of the rule is quashed and the valid portion can continue to remain
operative. However, if the valid and the invalid parts are inextricably mixed up, then the entire rule
has to go. A void rule cannot be the basis of any administrative action.

If the subordinate or delegated legislation goes beyond the scope of authority conferred on the
delegate or it is in conflict with the parent or enabling act, it is called substantive ultra vires. The
validity of the subordinate or delegated legislation may be challenged before the Courts on this
ground.

• Doctrine Of Indoor Management :- The doctrine of indoor management popularly

known as the turquand ‘s rule is a company law doctrine and initially arose some
150 years ago in the context of the doctrine of constructive notice. The letter seeks
to protect company against outsiders ; the former operates to protect outsiders
against company. The rule of constructive notice is confined to the external position
of the company and therefore it follows that there is no notice as to how the
company’s internal machinery is handled by its officers. If the contract is consistent
with the public document, the person contracting will not be prejudiced by
irregularities that may beset the indoor work of the company.
The doctrine of indoor management lays down that persons with a company having satisfied
themselves that the proposed transaction is not in nature inconsistent with the memorandum and
articles are not bound to inquire the regularity of any internal proceeding. In ither words, while
persons contracting with the company are presumed to know the provisions of the contents of the
memorandum and articles they are entitled to assume that the provisions of the articles , officers of
the company have observed the provisions of the articles. It is no part of the duty of any outsider to
see the company carries out its own internal regulations.

The doctrine had its genesis in the case of Royal British Bank vs Turquand. In this case the directors
of the company were authorised by the articles to borrow on bonds such sums of money as should
from time to time by a special resolution of the company in general meeting, be authorised to be
borrowed. A bond under the seal of the company, signed by two directors and the secretary was
given by the directors to the plaintiff to secure the drawings on current account without the
authority of any such resolution. Then turquand sought to bind the company on the basis of bond.
Thus the question arose whether the company was liable on that bond. Court applied doctrine of
indoor management and held company liable.

The doctrine of indoor management is however subject to certain exceptions and these are :

1. knowledge of irregularity
2. suspicion of irregularity
3. forgery
4. representation through articles
5. acts outside apparent authority