Question
‘What cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly.’ This doctrine relates toSolution
The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is founded on the Latin maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” which states that whatever is unable to be done directly, cannot also be done indirectly. The doctrine of colourability is the idea that when a legislature wants to do something that it cannot do within the constraints of the Constitution, it colours the law with a substitute purpose, allowing it to accomplish its original goal. The scope of the doctrine is well-explained by the Supreme Court in the matter of K.C Gajapati Narayan Deo vs. State of Orissa 1953
Three Statements are given followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at varianc...
Statements:
Some water is liquid.
Some liquid is milk.
No ice is milk.
Conclusions:
I. Some water is milk.
Statements:
All Bars are Graphs.
Only a few Graphs are Lines.
All Lines are Tables.
Conclusions:
I. Some Bars are Lines
II. No Bar is a Line
Statements:
All tigers are phones.
Some phones are guns.
Some guns are watches.
Conclusions:
I. Some guns are p...
Statements:No town is a city.
All cities are islands.
Conclusions:I. No island is a town. Â
II. All islands are cities.
Statements: No painting is a frame.
All frames are lights.
Some lights are canvas.
Conclusions: I. No light is a painting.
Statement: Â Â Â Â
Only Cricket is Kabaddi.
Some Cricket is Football. Â Â Â Â
Conclusion: Â Â Â Â
I. All Cricket are ...
Two statements are given followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III.Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance w...
In the question below there are three statements followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to take the three given statements to be true even if ...
In the question below some statements are given followed by three conclusions I, II, and III. You have to take the given statements to be true even if ...
