Whenever there is a conflict between two or more Statutes or between two or more parts or provisions of a Statute, then the Statute has to be interpreted upon harmonious construction. It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper harmonization is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat the purpose of another.’ The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is considered the thumb rule to the Rule of Interpretation of Statutes.

ORIGIN OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction was established as a result of court interpretations of a variety of cases. The doctrine’s creation can be traced all the way back to the first amendment to the Indian Constitution, with the landmark judgment of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India. The disagreement between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Indian Constitution was the subject of the case.

The court used the Harmonious Construction rule to hold that fundamental rights, which are rights granted against the state, may be revoked under certain circumstances and modified by Parliament to bring them into compliance with constitutional provisions. Both were given preference, and it was determined that FRs and DPSPs are just two sides of the same coin that must be worked together for the greater good.

This theory was developed historically through the law of conciliation, which was first proposed in the case of C.P and Berar Act. The court used this rule of interpretation to prevent any overlap or confusion between entries 24 and 25 of the State list, and to read them in a logical order by deciding the scope of the subjects in question

The objective of harmonious construction

• The objective of harmonious construction is to avoid any confrontation between two enacting provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way that they harmonize. The basis of this rule is that the Legislature never envisages to provide two conflicting provisions in a statute, for the reason that it amounts to self-contradiction.
• The real legislative intent, that we try to discover in the process of interpretation cannot be to provide for something in one provision and deny the same in subsequent one. Hence, even if an inconsistency is found, the same should be considered to be unintentional and as such, is required to be cured by way of harmonious construction.
• The objective of harmonious construction is to avoid confrontation between two enacting provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way that they harmonize. The normal presumption is that what the Parliament has given by one hand is not sought to be taken away from another. The origin Of the Doctrine Of Harmonious Construction dates back to the landmark Judgment of Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951. The disagreement between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution of India was the subject of the case.
• The Court used the Harmonious Construction Rule to hold that Fundamental Rights, which are rights granted against the State, may be revoked under certain circumstances and modified by Parliament to bring them into compliance with constitutional provisions.
• In the case of Venkataramana Devaru v. the State of Mysore 1958 SCR 895 the Supreme Court, by applying the doctrine of harmonious construction, resolved the conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution. It held that every religious denomination or section had the right to manage its own religious affairs.

When can it apply

The doctrine of harmonious construction is applied when the court is unable to reconcile the differences between opposing provisions. The courts must interpret them in such a manner that both the opposing provisions are given effect as much as possible.

The Courts have formulated some measures for the improved applicability of the said doctrine after reviewing numerous case laws.

1. Giving maximum force to both clauses thus reducing their inconsistency and/or dispute.
2. Both clauses that are inherently contradictory or repugnant to one another must be read as a whole, and the entire enactment must be considered.
3. Choose the one with the broader reach of the two contrasting clauses.
4. Compare the broad and narrow provisions, and then try to analyze the broad law to see if there are any other consequences. No further investigation is needed if the result is as fair as harmonizing both clauses and giving them full force separately. One thing to keep in mind is that the legislature, when enacting the provisions, was well aware of the situation that they were attempting to address, and thus all provisions adopted must be given full effect on scope.
5. A non-obstante clause must be used when one provision of an Act strips away powers conferred by another Act.
6. It is critical that the Court determine the degree to which the legislature wanted to grant one clause overriding authority over another. In Eastbourne Corporation v. Fortes Ltd (1959) 2 All ER 102 CA, it was decided that if two opposing sessions could not be reconciled, the last section would take precedence. This isn’t a universal law, though.

Principles of rule of Harmonious construction

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

1. the courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or dead is not harmonious construction.
5. to harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

Maxims on which the rule of harmonious construction is expressed

Generalia specialibus non derogant
The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the latter abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to later general law if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:

1. the two are inconsistent with each other.
2. if either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general would prevail.

Generalibus specialia derogant

This maxim means that special things derogate from general things. So special provisions in a statute control the general provisions. In other words, general provisions have no applications in the matter that are governed by special provisions. It can therefore be said that a special provision on a matter excludes the application of general provisions and always overrides the general provisions but this overriding effect is restricted to the extent of inconsistency between them.

CASE LAWS:

SIRSILK LTD. VS. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AIR 1964 SC 160,

An intriguing question involving a conflict between two equally mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, namely ss 17(1) and 18(1), is a good example of the significance of the concept that any attempt should be made to give effect to all of an act’s provisions by harmonizing every apparent conflict between two or more of them. Section 17(1) of the Act requires the government to publish any award of a Labour Tribunal within thirty days of receipt, and section 17(2) of the Act states that the award becomes final upon publication. A contract between an employer and employees is binding on the parties to the arrangement, according to Section 18(1) of the Act. In a situation where a settlement was reached after the Government received a Labour Tribunal award but before it was released, the issue was whether the Government was indeed obliged to report the award under section 17(1). The Supreme Court held that the only way to address the conflict was to hold that the industrial dispute ends with the settlement, which becomes valid from the date of signing, and the award becomes infructuous, and the Government cannot publish it.

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MP VS. RADHA KRISHNA 1979 AIR 1588, 1979 SCC (2) 249

The Commissioner sanctioned criminal prosecution of the respondent partners in this case under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, after the assessee failed to pay the sales tax despite repeated demands. The respondent argued that the Act had two separate sections, namely section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c, in which two different procedures for realizing the amount due were prescribed, but that there was no provision of law that could say which provision should be enforced in which case. The provision prescribed u/s 46 (1) c, according to the Supreme Court, was more serious. The inference drawn from the harmonious construction of these two clauses was that the Commissioner had judicial discretion in deciding which procedure to follow in which case. The court has the authority to interfere if the Commissioner fails to act judicially. However, in this situation, the Commissioner was right in deciding that the more severe procedure under section 46 (1) c needed to be used because the assesse company had failed to pay sales tax despite the sales tax officer’s repeated demands.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction provisions states that if the application of the doctrine is fundamentally inconsistent or repugnant to each other must be read entirely, and the complete enactment must be considered. The provision with a broader reach of the two contradicting provisions should be considered. It aids in the clarification of complex problems and facilitates the delivery of decisions. As a result, the value of the law of harmonious construction is recognized and felt by the judiciary, just as it is by many other laws of application of statutes. ‘The administration of justice is the firmest foundation of the nation,’ George Washington rightly said. As a result, in accordance with this philosophy, the judiciary should correctly interpret statutes and intelligently enforce the rules for interpreting statutes in order to provide prompt justice to the people of the country.