Doctrine of Implied Powers
The implied powers doctrine lets the Supreme Court read auxiliary powers into express constitutional grants — from judge resignations to curative petitions.
At a glance
A doctrine under which a power or duty conferred by statute or the Constitution carries, by necessary implication, whatever auxiliary power is indispensable to exercise it.
Raja Ram Pal (2007) — Parliament held to have an implied power under Article 105 to expel a member for contempt of the House.
Applied to Articles 105, 137, 217 and 316 in different cases; no single article codifies the doctrine itself.
Prevents an express constitutional power or duty from becoming unenforceable for want of a means to exercise it.
The implied powers doctrine holds that when a statute or constitutional provision confers a power or duty on an authority, it also confers, by necessary implication, whatever auxiliary or incidental power is indispensable to carry out that grant. In India, the Supreme Court has invoked this doctrine to read authority into constitutional provisions that do not spell it out in express words, so that the express power does not become a dead letter for want of a means to exercise it.
Meaning and Origin
The doctrine is also known as the doctrine of implication. It rests on the legal maxim that whoever grants a thing is deemed also to grant that without which the grant would be of no effect. Black's Law Dictionary defines an implied power as one that is not itself enumerated but exists because it is needed to carry out an express power. The idea has long been recognised in administrative law: an enabling statute that authorises something to be done is read as also authorising, by necessary implication, everything indispensable to doing it.
How the Supreme Court Applies the Test
The Supreme Court restricts the doctrine to situations where a duty imposed, or a power conferred, by statute cannot be discharged or exercised at all unless an auxiliary or incidental power is read into it. The impossibility must be general — the provision must become unworkable in all cases, not merely inconvenient in some — before the Court will supply a missing power by implication. This keeps the doctrine narrow: it fills genuine gaps that would otherwise leave a constitutional or statutory mandate unenforceable, rather than expanding an authority's powers at will.
Key Cases
| Case (Year) | Provision | Implied Power Recognised |
|---|---|---|
| Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) | Article 217 | A High Court judge who has tendered resignation has an implied power to revoke it before it takes effect. |
| Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) | Article 137 | The Supreme Court has an inherent/implied power to reconsider its own final judgments through a curative petition, to remedy a gross miscarriage of justice. |
| Raja Ram Pal (2007) | Article 105 | Parliament has an implied power to expel a member for contempt of the House. |
| Salil Sabhlok (2013) | Article 316 | A Governor's power to appoint members of the State Public Service Commission carries an implied power to lay down the procedure for such appointments. |
Doctrine of Implied Prohibition — Not Applicable in India
The doctrine of implied prohibition is the mirror image of the implied powers doctrine. It rests on the maxim that express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. In federations such as the United States and Australia, only the powers of the Central/Federal legislature are enumerated in the Constitution, and residuary powers rest with the states. Because of this design, there is an implied prohibition on the Centre from legislating on residuary subjects — except where the encroachment on state residuary power is merely incidental and ancillary to a properly exercised central power.
This doctrine does not apply in India. The Indian Constitution separately enumerates the powers of both Parliament and the State Legislatures across the Union, State and Concurrent Lists, and additionally vests residuary power in Parliament. Because both spheres are expressly listed rather than one being left to inference, there is no occasion for an implied prohibition to operate.
Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers
A related but distinct doctrine operates within India's legislative scheme. Every legislative entry in the Seventh Schedule carries with it the incidental and ancillary powers necessary to make that entry's exercise effective — described in the United States as "necessary and proper" powers and in Australia as powers "incidental to the execution" of an express power. Courts give the entries in the Union, State and Concurrent Lists a wide interpretation on this basis.
The doctrine has limits. It cannot be stretched to bring within a legislature's competence a subject that is explicitly and separately listed elsewhere — for instance, the State List's entry on betting and gambling does not, by incidental extension, cover the separately listed power to tax betting and gambling. Nor can the doctrine be invoked to validate a colourable exercise of legislative power, that is, one that is in substance a fraud on the constitutional distribution of powers. Courts most often draw on this doctrine, alongside the doctrine of pith and substance, to save a law from invalidity where its subject matter falls substantially within the enacting legislature's own list but touches incidentally upon a subject allotted to the other list.
UPSC Relevance
- Prelims: The implied powers doctrine, the doctrine of implied prohibition and its inapplicability in India, and the doctrine of incidental and ancillary powers are all testable as standalone concepts, often through case-based statements.
- Prelims: Case-to-provision matching is a recurring format — for example, linking Raja Ram Pal to Article 105, or Rupa Ashok Hurra to the curative petition under Article 137.
- Mains (GS II): These doctrines illustrate how the Supreme Court has interpreted constitutional silence — useful in answers on judicial interpretation and the relationship between express and implied constitutional authority.
- Mains (GS II): The contrast between implied powers (recognised in India) and implied prohibition (not applicable in India) is a good analytical point for questions on the federal distribution of powers under the Seventh Schedule.
FAQ
Q1. What is the implied powers doctrine? It is the principle that a power or duty conferred by statute or the Constitution carries with it, by necessary implication, whatever auxiliary power is indispensable to exercise that power or discharge that duty.
Q2. Is the doctrine of implied prohibition applicable in India? No. It applies in federations like the USA and Australia, where only central legislative powers are enumerated and residuary power is inferred to belong to the states. India separately enumerates powers for both Parliament and the State Legislatures, so no such prohibition is implied.
Q3. What is a curative petition, and how does it relate to this doctrine? In Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), the Supreme Court held it has an implied power under Article 137 to reconsider even a final judgment, through a curative petition, to correct a gross miscarriage of justice after a review petition has been dismissed.
Q4. How is the doctrine of incidental and ancillary powers different from the implied powers doctrine? The implied powers doctrine concerns filling a genuine gap so that a granted power is not rendered unworkable. The doctrine of incidental and ancillary powers concerns legislative competence under the Seventh Schedule — it lets a legislature enact provisions incidental to its own listed subject, even if they touch the other list, but does not let it annex a subject expressly and separately listed.
Q5. Can the doctrine of incidental and ancillary powers be used to validate a colourable law? No. The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine cannot be extended to a colourable exercise of legislative power, that is, one that amounts to a fraud on the Constitution's distribution of powers.
Quick Revision
- Implied powers doctrine = doctrine of implication; auxiliary power exists if the express power/duty is otherwise unworkable.
- Test: impossibility must be general, not case-specific.
- Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) — Article 217 — implied power to revoke resignation.
- Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) — Article 137 — implied power for curative petitions.
- Raja Ram Pal (2007) — Article 105 — implied power to expel MPs.
- Salil Sabhlok (2013) — Article 316 — implied power to fix SPSC appointment procedure.
- Implied prohibition: applies in USA/Australia, NOT in India (both Union and State powers separately enumerated).
- Incidental and ancillary powers: entries in Seventh Schedule read widely, but cannot cover a separately listed subject or validate colourable legislation.
Sources
- Constitution of India — Seventh Schedule
- Constitution of India — Articles 105, 137, 217 and 316
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 — Supreme Court of India
- Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 — Supreme Court of India
Further Reference
For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:
- M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
- D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
- The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.
Constitutional provisions
Powers and privileges of Parliament and its members — held to carry an implied power to expel a member for contempt (Raja Ram Pal, 2007).
Supreme Court's power to review its own judgments — held to carry an implied power to entertain curative petitions (Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002).
Appointment and conditions of office of High Court judges — held to carry an implied power to revoke a tendered resignation (Gopal Chandra Misra, 1978).
Appointment of members to a State Public Service Commission — held to carry an implied power to lay down the appointment procedure (Salil Sabhlok, 2013).