(Umar Saif Khan, Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow)
Introduction
Law uses a tool to keep society well and mess-free, which prevents conflict between the
people by changing their behavior. The law drafted by the experts for smoothly regulating the
society doesn’t contain the Ambiguate and specific words, and Legal experts are busy to unwinding
the meaning of words and in expression for fickleness. All of them need to formulate certain
rules for interpretation of statutes. We all know Government has three Bodies, namely
Legislature, i.e., who amend the law, Executive, i.e., who enact the laws, and Judiciary, i.e.;
who check the powers of law and interpret the law’s meaning to supply the particular
meaning of the Statute [1].
Interpretation means [2]the Art of researching for the character’s true meaning of the
enactments. The court isn’t an expert to arbitrate the law; therefore, some principals must
administer verity meaning of the law. These Principles are referred to as Rules of
Interpretation.
The doctrine of Harmonious Construction;
If two or over two provisions of the identical Act are conflicting between each other so the
the doctrine of harmonious construction needs to be adopted, rule follows a very simple premise
that every statute has a purpose and intends to be read as a whole and interpret them in such a
manner to give effect to both and make harmony between them [3].
Rules
Both the provisions which are in conflict should be read as a Whole, One Provision of them
should be a conflict with the other Provision of the same Act consistent enactment of the
the whole statute to remove inconsistency and repugnancy, it conducts the Harmony in the list
which is defined under Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution. (Union List, Concurrent List,
State List, and the List of the Legislation) In the case, in which it arises between the provision
make harmony between the Provision shall prevail, A construction of which make one portion of the enactment dead letter should be avoided since the harmonization is not a
distraction [4].
‘Venkataram Iyer’ The rule of construction is well settled that when in an enactment there are
two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, the effect should be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction.’ [5]
The doctrine is connected with two Latin maxims;
- Generalia specialibus non-derogant [6]; which means Where Conflict arises between the
two provision, the principles of a general statute must produce one special provision
from them. - Generalibus specialia derogant; which means ‘special thing reframes from general
things’ [7] If a special provision made on a certain matter and excluded from general
provision.
Principals of the Doctrine of the Harmonious Constriction;
There are five principals given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan
Bulk Carrier [8]. - The courts must avoid any clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them. - The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision
contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find
a way to reconcile their differences [9] . - ‘When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory
provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a way so that effect is given
to both the provisions as much as possible’. - Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to
a useless number or dead is not harmonious construction. - To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless’.
- Conclusion;
1.Venkataramana v. State of Mysore [10] ;
In this case, the Supreme Court adopts the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction for resolving the conflict between the Article 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the constitution and held; right of every
religious denomination its own matter in the mater of religion. Article 26(b) is the subject of
law, state legislation provides social welfare reforms and throwing open Hindu institution
to all classes and sections of Hindus Article 25(2)(b).
2.M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha [11] ;
In this case, the doctrine of Harmonious construction was applied for resolving the conflict
between article 19(1)(a) and 194(3) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court held that;
Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed that ‘Freedom of expression’ is power and privilege of
House of Legislature, which is similar to the house of commons of the United Kingdom under
Article 194(3). But after the above judgment, it decided; Article 194(3) is subordinate to the
Article 21,32,211 and 226.
3.Shankari Prasad v. Union of India [12] ;
In the Landmark Judgment of the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, the conflict
between two Articles of the Constitution, i.e., Article 13(2) and Article 268 of the Indian
Constitution wherein Article 13(2) says if any law amends after the enforcement of the
Constitution which is contradictory in nature to the Fundamental Rights shall be Void, and
Article 368 gave the power to parliament to amend any law or procedure and also not
providing any exception, But this is how Article 13(2) impose Limitation on Article 368, Supreme Court held that; Parliament does have the absolute power to amend any Law including the Fundamental Rights, but Parliament, by using their parliamentary authority, can’t take away or Abridge the Fundamental Rights.
4. Raj Kumar Bose v. Binod [13] ;
In the case of raj Kumar v. Binod, two Provisions of the Representative of Peoples Act, 1951
which are conflicted Section 32(2) says Government servant can nominate or second a person
in the election but Section 123(8) says that any Government servant cannot nominate aid to any person in the election except casting his vote. Supreme Court applied here the doctrine of Harmonious Construction and held that; A government servant was entitled to nominate and
second keeping up a candidate.
The conclusion of the doctrine is when two or more than two provisions are conflicting, so the Doctrine of harmonious Construction came into the light and avoided the Conflict of the Provisions of the statute, the analysis of the court is final to give both the provisions maximum and equal effects for maintaining the harmony in the Statute, it helps the Judges in interpreting the provisions and provide justice at large. Interpretation of a statute is for making law understood, and there are various principals for them Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is very useful in many cases and it is one of the precious tools in the hand of the justice while interpreting the statutes.
1 Munesh Kumar, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, LAWLEX.ORG (September 25;2020 11:28 AM),
https://lawlex.org/lex-pedia/doctrine-of-harmonious-construction/20390
2 Mayank Shekhar, Introduction, Meaning and nature of Interpretation, (September 25; 2020 11;38 PM)
https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-interpretation-meaning-and-nature-of-interpretation/
3 Arjungupta94, Harmonious and beneficiary Construction, LEGAL SERVICE India.com, (September 26; 4:48 PM)
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1941/Harmonious-and-Beneficial-Construction..html
4 Shristi Khandelwal, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, Legal Sarcasm, (September 26; 2020 5:12 PM),
https://legalsarcasm.com/legal-notes/doctrine-of-harmonious-construction/
5 T V Iyaar, Sri Venkataramana Others VS. State of Mysore and others, 1958 AIR 255, 1958 SCR 895, Indian Kanonn, (September 27;2020 11:02AM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1896039/
6 6 Bhanvi Juvekar, Generalia specialibus non-Derogant, (September 26;2020 5:48 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/generalis-specialibus-non-derogant-know-all-about-it/
7 G.L. Peiris, Gereliabus Specialibus Derogand, ( September 26; 2020 5:55 PM) https://india.lawi.asia/generalibus-specialia derogant/#:~:text=Generalibus%20Specialia%20Derogant%3A%20a%20Maxim,excluded%20from%20the%20general%20 provisions.
8 Dharmadhikari, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers on 17 December; 2000, Indian Kanoon, (September 26; 2020, 6:16PM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/688236/
9 S.S. Ahmad, Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain, AIR 1997 SC 1006, pp. 1009, 1010., Indian Kanoon,(September 26;2020 7:22 PM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1530418/
10 T V Iyaar, Sri Venkataramana Others VS. State of Mysore and others, 1958 AIR 255, 1958 SCR 895, Indian Kanoon, (September 27;2020 11:09AM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1896039/
11 R S Das, Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha and Others on 12 December 1958, 1959 AIR 395, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 806, Indian Kanoon, (September 27;2020, 11:27AM)https://indiankanoon.org/doc/944601/
12 M P Shastri, Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union Of India And The State Of Bihar on 5 October;1951, 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89, Indian Kanoon, (27 September;2020, 1:05PM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1706770/
13 SR Das, Raj Krushna Bose vs. Binod Kanungo and others on 14 February; 1954, 1954 AIR 202, 1954 SCR 913, Indian Kanoon (September 27; 2020, 3:15PM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56258/
LAW LANCERS 