- INTRODUCTION (Vipra)

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is considered as the thumb Tule to the Rule of
Interpretation of Statutes.
The Doctrine states: Whenever there is a case of 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 based on a cardinal principle in law that every
statute has been formulated with a specific purpose and intention and thereby should be read
as a whole. The normal presumption is that what the Parliament has given by one hand is not
sought to be taken away from another. The essence is to give effect to both the provisions. To
avoid conflict, the adopted Interpretation of the Statute should be consistent with all its
provisions.
If there seems an impossibility to harmoniously construe or reconcile the parts/provision,
then the matter rests with the Judiciary to decide and give its final Judgment. The aim of the
Courts is to do interpretation in a manner that it resolves the repugnancy between the
provisions and enables the Statute to become consistent as a whole and read accordingly.
……next slide……
ORIGIN OF DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION (Shekhar)
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 Constitution of India, with the landmark Judgment of [Sri Shankari Prasad
Singhh Deo Vs Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458]. 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. Both
were given preference, and it was determined that Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy 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 General Clauses Act, 1914. The Court used this Rule
of Interpretation to prevent any overlap or confusion between entries 24 & 25 of the State
List, and to read them in a logical order by deciding the scope of the subjects in question.
……next slide……
ADVANTAGES OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION (Vipra)
1. Avoids Conflicting Provisions: The doctrine of harmonious construction helps in
reconciling apparent conflicts or inconsistencies between different provisions of a statute.
This avoids the possibility of conflicting provisions and ensures that the law is clear and
unambiguous.
2. Consistent Interpretation: The doctrine of harmonious construction ensures that statutes are
interpreted consistently over time. This consistency is essential for providing stability and
predictability in the legal system, which is essential for the efficient functioning of society.
3. Legislative Intent: The doctrine of harmonious construction helps in interpreting statutes in
a manner that reflects the legislative intent. This ensures that the law serves the purpose for
which it was enacted, and the objectives of the legislature are achieved.
……next slide……
4. Avoids Absurdity: The doctrine of harmonious construction helps in avoiding absurd or
unreasonable outcomes that might result from a literal interpretation of the statute. This is
particularly important when the language of the statute is ambiguous or unclear.
5. Broader Social and Legal Context: The doctrine of harmonious construction helps in
interpreting statutes considering the broader social and legal context. This ensures that the
interpretation of the statute is consistent with the broader legal principles and values.
6. Avoids Litigation: The doctrine of harmonious construction helps in avoiding litigation by
providing clear and unambiguous interpretations of statutes. This is particularly important in
complex legal disputes where a clear interpretation of the statute can help in resolving the
dispute without the need for litigation.
……next slide……
LIMITATIONS OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION (Shekhar)
1. Limited Scope: The doctrine of harmonious construction is limited in scope and can only
be applied when there is an apparent conflict or inconsistency between different provisions of
a statute. It cannot be used to override the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.
2. Subjective Interpretation: The application of the doctrine of harmonious construction can
be subjective, and different judges may interpret the same statute differently. This can lead to
inconsistent interpretations of the same statute.
3. Risk of Judicial Legislation: The doctrine of harmonious construction can lead to the risk
of judicial legislation, where judges might read words or phrases into the statute that were not
intended by the legislature.
……next slide……
4. Conflicts with Other Principles: The doctrine of harmonious construction can sometimes
conflict with other principles of statutory interpretation, such as the literal rule or the golden
rule. This can create difficulties in interpreting the statute.
5. Limited Guidance: The doctrine of harmonious construction provides limited guidance on
how to reconcile conflicting provisions of a statute. This can lead to uncertainty in the
interpretation of the statute.
6. Ignoring Context: The doctrine of harmonious construction can sometimes lead to the
ignoring of the context in which the statute was enacted, and the purpose for which it was
intended. This can result in interpretations that are inconsistent with the overall objective of
the statute.
……next slide……
FIVE MAIN PRINCIPLES (Vipra)
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. ["Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs Hindustan Bulk Carriers", (2003) 3 SCC 57, P. 74].
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. ["Sultana Begum Vs Premchand Jain", AIR 1997 SC 1006, Pages 1009,
1010].
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.
……next slide……
LANDMARK CASES (Shekhar)
……next slide……
In [ Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. Vs State of Mysore & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 255], the
Supreme Court applied the Rule of harmonious construction in resolving a conflict between
Articles 25 (2)(b) and 26 (b) of the Constitution of India and it was held that the right of
every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage 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)].
……next slide……
In [M. S. M. Sharma Vs Krishna Sinha & Ors, AIR 1959 SC 395, Page 410], the same Rule
was applied to resolve the conflict between Articles 19 (1)(a) and 194 (3) of the Constitution
of India and it was held that the right of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a)
is the read as subject to powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature
which are those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as declared by the latter
part of Article 194 (3). The Court found that Sharma's actions did not directly fall under the
free speech protections of Article 19 because it violated the authority reserved to the
Assembly in Article 194 over the publication of its proceedings.
…………………….Thankyou……………………….