HARMONIOUS

CONSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION

 Harmony :- In harmony, pleasantful, tuneful

 Harmonious – having different parts that are
combined in a peaceful manner.
 When there is conflict between 2 or more
sections, provisions or two or more parts of the
statute.
 Then the rule of Harmonious Construction needs
to be adopted.
 It brings harmony between them
 The rule follow a very simple premise: that every
statute has a purpose and intent as per law and
should be read as a whole.
 In the case in which it shall be impossible to
harmonize both the provisions.
 A) the courts decision regarding the provision
shall prevail.
 The court aim: the interpretation which makes
the enactment a consistent whole.
 A Construction ;- which avoids inconsistency
between the different parts of an enactment.
 Normal presumption :- one hand by legislature

 Is not taken away by the other hand

 The court should have a normal presumption
that
 1. what is given with one hand by the legislature.

 2. Is sought to be taken away by the other.

 Harmonious Construction should be applied to

sub ordinate legislations, constitutional
interpretation, statutory rules and court should
avoid absurdity.
 It should be resorted to making the provision
meaningful in the context.
 It is applicable to sub ordinate legislation also.

 Thumb rule to interpretation of any statute

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 Legislative intention
 No violence should be caused to the plain
language of the statute.
 This Construction is applicable by courts for the
interpretation of constitution .
 The provision of an Act doesn’t matter another
provision of the same Act.
 Harmonious Construction is not possible where 2
provisions are quite distinct and separate.
LEADING CASE LAWS :-
1. CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers ( Carrier Case)
- The Supreme Court laid down 5 principles of
Harmonious Construction :
 The court must avoid a head on clash.

 The provision of one section cannot defeat the

provision contained in another.
 Courts must also keep in mind that interpret on that
reduces one provision to a useless number or dead is
not a harmonious construction.
 To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision
or render it fruitless.
 Legislative intention must be gathered.
2. Calcutta Gas company Pvt. Ltd v State of West
Bengal.( Gas company case )
- The Legislative Assembly of West Bengal passed the
Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960.
- Respondent sought to take over the management of
the Gas company under this Act.
- Appellant Contention:-
- a. challenging the validity of this act by holding that
legislative assembly had no power to pass such an act
under entries 24 & 25 of the state list.
- Because the parliament had already enacted the
industries ( Development & Regulation ) Act, under “
entry 52” of the central list dealing with Industries.
.Supreme Court observed :
a. There are so many subjects in 3 lists in the
constitution that there is bound to be some
overlapping
b. And it is the duty of the courts in such situation
is yet to harmonize them.
- Entry 24 of state list:- entire industries in state
- Entry 25 of state list :- only limited to Gas
Industry.
- Therefore entry 24 covers every industry
barring the Gas industries. Because it has been
specifically covered under Entry 25.
- Corresponding to entry 24- State list, there is
entry 54 of union list.
- Therefore by harmonious construction it became
clear that gas industry was exclusively covered
by entry 25 of state list.
- State has full control and competent to make
laws in this regard.
3. M.S. M Sharma v Krishna Sinha ( News paper
case )
 Editor of a news paper – was asked to show cause
as to why should he not be punished – Breached
or privilege of a house – By Art 194 ( 3)
 --For a publishing a speech made in the State
Legislative Assembly with out expunging –
certain remarks which were the given by the
speaker .
 In a petition under Sec 32 of the constitution he
argued that what ever the action taken against
him would be contrary to the Art 19 ( 1) (a) of the
 SC Art 19(1)(a) and Art 194( 3) – harmoniously
interpreted
 -- it was necessary upheld F.R was subjected to
Privileges of Houses .
 Petition was dismissed.
4. In Sirsilk Ltd v Government of Andhra Pradesh(
Award Case )
- An interesting question arose here relating to a
conflict between 2 equally mandatory provisions viz
Sec 17 (1) and sec 18 (1) of I.D Act is a good
illustration of the importance of the principle that
every effort should be made to give effect to all the
provisions of an act by harmonizing any apparent
conflict between 2 or more of its provisions.
- Sec 17(1) of the Act :- requires the government to
publish every award of a labour tribunal with in 30
days of its receipt and by sub sec (2) of sec 17.
- Sec 18 (1) provides settlement between employer
and workmen shall be binding on the parties to the
agreement.
- In a case where a settlement was arrived at after
the receipt of the award of a Labour Tribunal by
the government but before its publication.
- The Question arose was :-
- A. Whether the Government was still required
under sec 17(1) to publish the award.
- In construing these 2 equally mandatory
provisions .
- The Supreme Court held :
- 1. that the only way to resolve the conflict was to
hold that by the settlement ,which becomes
effective from the date of signing.
- The I.D Act comes to an end and the award
becomes infructurous and government cannot
publish it.
5. In BCI v Board of Management , Dayanand
College of Law
- The question was with regard to appointment of
principal in law college was involved.
- The Supreme Court held that eligibility
conditions for the same should be considered with
the requirement of sections :-
- 1. Sec 7 (1) (h) and Sec 49 (1) (d) of the Advocates
Act, 1961.
- 2. As well as rule 12 of the BCI rules.
- 3. The Statute of the university i.e the U.P State
universities Act, 1973.
-
 4. In that Sec 50 made a provision having a
doctorate degree. any faculty having the same is
eligible for appointment on that post.
The Supreme Court held :
a. All that acts, rules, would be harmoniously
interpreted and read that “ Doctorate degree
holder in any law subjects could be alone to be
appointed as principal of law college.