Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more provisions of the law they should be followed in such a way that maximum benefit can be obtained and no rule need to be violated in the process of following another one.

It is a sound rule of interpretation that Courts must try to avoid a conflict between the provisions of the statute.

A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.

It is the duty of the Courts to avoid conflict between two provisions and whenever it is possible to do so to construe provisions that appear to conflict so that they harmonize.

Where in an enactment, there are two provisions that cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, the effect may be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between a section and other parts of the statue. 

In the land mark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57 the supreme court laid down five principles of rule of harmonious construction:

• the courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions.
• the provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another unless the court, despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences
• 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 both the provisions as much as possible.
• courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to the useless number or dead is not harmonious construction.
• to harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

In Re Kerala Education Bill Case 1957 the SC uses the rule of harmonious construction and ruled that there is no inherent conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy and that they together constitute an integrated scheme. They constitute a comprehensive social and administrative program for a modern democratic state. They are in fact supplementary and complementary to each other. Therefore as far as possible avoid any conflict among them. They run parallel to each other and none is subordinate to the other.

• If two interpretations of law are possible and if one interpretation violates the harmony between the two while the other reinforces the harmony, the latter interpretation shall be accepted over the former.

• However, if there is only one interpretation and that is conflicting them the court shall implement the fundamental rights over the directive principles because the SC is duty-bound to implement the fundamental rights.

In Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore AIR 1997 SC 1006 the SC applied the doctrine of harmonious construction in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26 (b)of the constitution and it was held that the right of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manages its own affairs in matters of religion [ Article 26(b)] is subject to a law made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [ Article 25(2)(b)].

The legislature enacts the law and the possibility of situations of ambiguity can not be ruled out. In that situations, the rule of interpretation of statutes come into play and the provisions are construed so as to give maximum effect to them. The doctrine of harmonious construction has help judges to interpret the two confronting laws easily and help in providing justice to society at large. Thus, it is one of the most important tools in hands of the judiciary while doing any interpretation of the statutes.

Courtesy--

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com