Answer & Solution
Answer: Option
D
Solution:
Option A: Colourable Legislation ⇔ What cannot be done directly can be done indirectly
This statement is correct. The doctrine of colourable legislation means that if a legislature lacks the power to make a law directly, it cannot achieve the same result by disguising it or using indirect methods.
Option B: Pith and Substance ⇔ Incidental encroachment on the field of another legislature is permissible
This statement is also correct. The doctrine of pith and substance means that when determining the competence of a legislature to enact a law, the court looks at the 'true nature and character' or 'pith and substance' of the law. If the law falls within the legislative competence of that legislature, an incidental encroachment on a matter assigned to another legislature does not make the law invalid.
Option C: Territorial Nexus ⇔ Subject of legislation must have territorial connection with the state
This statement is correct. The doctrine of territorial nexus implies that the law made by a state legislature is valid only if there is a sufficient connection between the subject matter of the law and the state.
Option D: Repugnancy ⇔ A situation in which a law made by the Union is in conflict with a law made by a state
This statement is also correct. Repugnancy arises when a law made by the Parliament (Union) is inconsistent with a law made by a State Legislature on a matter in the Concurrent List. In such a situation, the Union law will prevail, and the State law will be void to the extent of the repugnancy.
Option E: None Of the Above
Since all the pairs are correctly matched, this is the correct answer.
Therefore, the answer is E.
