Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

 Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is one of the cannons of interpretation used for

Interpretation of Statues. 
 The Doctrine states that, a provision of the statue should not be interpreted or
construed in isolation but as a whole, so as to remove any inconsistency or
repugnancy.
 The five main principles of this rule are:
1) The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and
they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
2) 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.
3) When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory
provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to
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.

CASE LAW
 Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India, 1951

(The Parliament, under A. 368, has power to amend any part of the constitution)

Facts

 The political party in power had carried out certain agrarian reforms in Madhya
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar by enacting legislation which may be compendiously
known as Zamindari Abolition Acts.
 Certain Zamindars, feeling aggrieved, had challenged the aforementioned enactments
in the Court of law on the grounds that it contravened the Fundamental Rights
conferred on them by part III of the Constitution of India.
 The High court at Patna held that the Acts passed in Bihar were unconstitutional,
while the High Courts at Allahabad and Nagpur upheld the validity of the acts in U.P
and M.P, respectively.
 Appeals from those decisions were made and the Union Government, in order to put
an end to these litigations and also as a remedy to certain defects, brought forward the
bill of amendment.
 The aforementioned Bill, after receiving the requisite majority came to be known as
the Constitution (First) Amendment Act, 1951.
 As a reaction to this move of the Government, the Zamindars brought their petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Amendment Act itself as
void and unconstitutional.

Arguments Advanced- [in support of the petition]

 The provisional Parliament was not competent to exercise that power under art. 379 as
the power of amending the Constitution provided for under art. 368 was conferred not
on Parliament but on the two Houses of Parliament as a designated body.
 In any case art. 368 is a complete code in itself and does not provide for any
amendment being made in the bill after it has been introduced in the House. The bill
in the present case having been admittedly amended in several particulars during its
passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in
conformity with the procedure prescribed in art. 368.
 The Amendment Act, in so far as it purports to take away or abridge the rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution, falls within the prohibition of art. 13 (2).
  It was challenged that Amendment (in this case an amendment to Article 31A and
31B) that take away fundamental right of the citizens is not allowed by article 13. It
was argued that “State” includes parliament and “Law” includes Constitutional
Amendments.

Arguments Advanced- [in support of the petition]

 It was submitted- as the fundamental law of the country, the Constitution should not
be liable to frequent changes according to the whim of party majorities, the framers
placed special difficulties in the way of amending the Constitution as the constitution
provides for three classes of amendments that are;
1) those that can be affected by a bare majority such as that required for the passing
of any ordinary law.
2) Secondly those that Can be affected by a special majority as laid down in art. 368
3) Thirdly, those that require, in addition to the special majority above-mentioned,
ratification by resolutions passed by not less than one-half of the States specified
in Parts A and B of 'the First Schedule.
 With respect to Art. 13(2), it was argued that "The State" includes Parliament (article
12) and "law" must include a constitutional amendment. It was the deliberate
intention of the framers of the Constitution, who realized the sanctity of the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III, to make them immune from interference not
only by ordinary laws passed by the legislatures in the country but also from
constitutional amendments.
 There are other important considerations about the above argument which point to the
opposite conclusion as- there is a clear demarcation between ordinary law, which is
made in exercise of legislative power, and constitutional law, which is made in
exercise of constituent power.
 No doubt our constitution-makers, following the American model, have incorporated
certain fundamental rights in Part III and made them immune from interference by
laws made by the State
 However, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is difficult to suppose
that they also intended to make those rights immune from constitutional amendment.
  Thus, in the context of art. 13 "law" must be taken to mean rules or regulations made
in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the constitution made
in exercise of constituent power, with the result that article 13(2) does not affect
amendments made under art. 368.

JUDGEMENT

 Thus, the petition failed and was dismissed

Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1965

Facts

 It was a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

 Sajjan Singh was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police by Jaipur Police on 10th
February, 1948.
 The same was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police of Rajasthan on
September, 1951.
 On Certain complaints, after enquiry an order of the dismissal of the petitioner (Sajjan
Singh) was passed on 11th August, 1953.
 On the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct and
in any case, he had been appointed by the inspector General of Police of Rajasthan,
the Deputy Inspector General, Jaipur Range had no authority to pass an order of his
dismissal.
 Appeals against dismissal were rejected twice.

Arguments from Respondent

 State urged that the petitioner was confirmed as Sub-Inspector by the Deputy
Inspector General of Jaipur Range, and, therefore, the order of dismissal passed by
him was competent.
 He was given sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct and there was no
irregularity in the proceedings.
  State was relied on the observations in the Annual Inspection Report for the year 1950
by the Deputy Inspector General Police Jaipur Range recorded sometime in March,
1951.

Arguments from Petitioner (Sajjan singh)

 Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1950, had been brought into force on 20th November,
1950, and the Deputy Inspector General had been conferred the power of first
appointment, and the confirmation recorded in the Inspection Note should be taken to
be an order of first appointment.
 That he had been appointed by the Inspector General of former Jaipur State as sub
Inspector in 1948.

Observations

 That while the Deputy Inspector General of each Range was given the powers of
appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police on integration of services, this power was not
exercised by them and they only made a recommendation to the Inspector General of
Police and the Inspector General actually passed the orders.
 Under Article 311 of the Constitution a person cannot be removed from service by an
authority sub ordinate to that by which he was appointed.

Concepts That Emerged from the case

 The validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged in this case.

 the Seventeenth Amendment limited the jurisdiction of the High Courts and,
therefore, required ratification by one-half of the States under the provisions of article
368.
 The words "amendment of this constitution" in article 368 plainly and unambiguously
meant amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution; it would, therefore, be
unreasonable to hold that the word "law" in article 13(2) took in Constitution
Amendment Acts passed under article 368.
 Even if the powers to amend the fundamental rights were not included in article 368,
Parliament could by a suitable amendment assume those powers.

Final Judgment
  The petition was allowed and the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector
General, Jaipur Range on 11th August, 1953, was declared, unconstitutional and was
thereby set aside. The petitioner was to get his costs from the State of Rajasthan.

Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab, 1967

(The Parliament is not powered to amend the Part III (Fundamental Rights))

Facts

 the family of one William Golak Nath had over 500 acres of property in Punjab
 Acting under Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 which was placed in 9th
Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 the state government
intimated to petitioner that he can now only possess 30 acres of land & rest will be
treated as surplus.
 Aggrieved by this intimation of the state government petitioner filed a writ petition
u/a 32 of Indian constitution and pleaded the violation of his FR’s mentioned u/a
19(1)(f) i.e. Right to Hold & acquire property, 19(1)(f) Right to practice any
profession & 14 (Equality before Law & Equal protection of laws).

Issue

 Constitutionality of 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964

 Whether Amendment is a law under the meaning of Article 13(2)?
 Whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

 The Constitution of India as drafted by the Constituent Assembly is of permanent

nature and no act which changes or tries to bring about a change is constitutional.
 The word ‘amendment’ only implies a change in accordance with the basic idea & not
altogether a new idea.
 The Fundamental rights as provided under Part III cannot be taken away by an act of
parliament of whatsoever nature because they are the essential & integral part of the
Constitution without which Constitution is like a body without a soul.
  Article 368 only defines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It does not
grant the power to parliament to amend the Constitution.
 Article 13(3)(a) in its definition of “law” will cover all types of law i.e. statutory or
constitutional etc. in its ambit therefore by the virtue of Article 13(2), any
constitutional amendment violative of Part III will be unconstitutional.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

 Constitutional Amendment is a result of the exercise of sovereign power & this

exercise of sovereign power is different from the legislative power which Parliament
exercises to make laws.
 The very object of the amendment is to change the laws of the nation as per the
changing needs of the society. The absence of such provision would result in
Constitution becoming too rigid.
 There is no hierarchy in the Constitutional provisions as basic or non-basic and all the
provisions are of equal importance and equal status.
 Most of the amendments being the answers to political questions, they are outside the
ambit of judicial scrutiny.

JUDGMENT

 The Apex court had arrived at a 6:5 majority favouring Petitioners.

 According to the majority, the impugned Article 368 through which the parliament
was drawing power to amend the Constitution in fact merely laid down the procedure
of amending the constitution. The majority relied on the Marginal note of the earlier
Article 368 to arrive at this conclusion.
 The majority located the power to amend the constitution in Article 248 of the
Constitution which provides for the Residuary power of Parliament. Since the product
of Article 248 is law, therefore, in majority’s opinion Amendment of Constitution is
“law” for the purposes of article 13(2) of Constitution.
 The absence of word “amendment” in the definition of “law” was answered by the
majority in the form that the definition under Article 13(3)(a) is not exhaustive rather
it is inclusive.
 there is no difference between legislative and amending process
Minority view

1. The minority bench was fearful of the stance of majority in the sense that if
majority’s opinion becomes established law then it would grant tough rigidity to
the Constitution. They were sceptical that if Parliament is not provided with
amending competence the Constitution would become static & all the dynamic
nature of Constitution will meet death.
2. In accordance with the minority opinion although the procedure of Article 368
does very much correspond to the legislative process but it is different from
ordinary legislation.