14.5 Doctrine of Colorable Legislation

The doctrine: legislative colour, not legislative form, decides competence — what a legislature cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly. A law that on its face deals with a subject within the enacting legislature's list, but in substance encroaches on another level's exclusive list, is ultra vires as colourable legislation. The name comes from the old saying that "the colour" of the Act is examined, not its label. The federal anchor (why this doctrine matters most in Nepal): with five schedules dividing power (Unit 6), the temptation — and the litigation — is constant: a federal law "about standards" that in substance occupies Schedule 6's provincial field; a provincial law "about local services" that invades Schedule 5. The Court's inquiry: the true nature and object of the law (the pith and substance) versus its merely colourable dress. Related: the court asks whether the incidental effect on another list is genuine collateral or the statute's real purpose. Severability + colourable legislation (the standard combined question): a finding of colourable legislation identifies the invalid exercise; severability then determines how much of the statute falls — the two doctrines work in sequence.