I.O.S.

ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: Harmonious construction and statute must be read as a

whole.

SUBMITTED TO: DR. PARVEEN SUBMITTED BY: URVASHI

(Asst. Prof.Interpretation of Statutes) CLASS/ YEAR: BA. LLB. (3rd year)
ROLL NO. :191262
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my professor Dr.Parveen Kaur, who gave me this

opportunity to work on this project. I got to learn a lot from this project
about harmonious Construction and how statutes must be read as a
whole.

At last, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my parents

because without their help this project would not have been successful.
Finally, I would like to thank my dear friends who have been with me all
the time.

2
 INDEX

1. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION
a. Introduction
b. Meaning
c. Relevant case laws
d. Principles
e. Maxims
f. Conclusion
2. STATUTE MUST BE READ AS WHOLE
a. Introduction
b. Meaning
c. Relevant case laws
d. Application
e. Conclusion
3. CONCLUSION
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

3
 1. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

a. Introduction

In the realm of statutory interpretation, the principle of harmonious

construction stands as a beacon, guiding courts to resolve conflicts
and inconsistencies within legal provisions. By harmonizing statutes
dealing with the same subject matter, this principle ensures the unity of
legislative intent and the coherence of the legal framework.

The thumb rule for interpreting any statute is then the rule of
harmonious construction. The doctrine of harmonious construction is a
tool that helps judges and legal experts make sense of conflicting laws
or rules. Instead of declaring any statute void, it is better to save the
legislation whenever conflicts arise between two legislations. This
principle ensures that laws are understood and applied very smoothly
without nullifying the legislation.

b. Meaning
The doctrine of harmonious construction is followed when there
arises an inconsistency between two or more statutes or sections of
a particular statute. The fundamental principle behind this doctrine is
that a statute has a legal purpose and should be read in its totality

4
and after that, the interpretation that is consistent with all the
provisions of that statute should be used.

In general, the doctrine of harmonious construction means that when

there arises a conflict between different statutes or between the
statutes, in such circumstances, courts try to interpret them in a way
that makes them work together smoothly instead of declaring other
statutes void. The main aim of this doctrine is to give effect to all the
provisions while maintaining the overall coherence and purpose of
the law.

c. Relevant case laws

Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003)1, where the

Supreme Court of India emphasized the need to interpret related
statutes harmoniously to avoid repugnancy and ensure legislative
harmony. In this case, the court held that statutes forming part of the
same legislative scheme should be construed together to give effect
to the overall legislative intent.

1
AIR 2003 SC189

5
In Maya Mathew v. State of Kerela2 it was held that the rules of
Interpretation when a subject is governed by two sets of Rules are
well settled. They are-

1. When a provision of law regulates a particular subject and

subsequent law contains a provision regulating the same
subject, there is no presumption that the later law repeals the
earlier law. There is no rule making authority, while making the
later rule, is deemed to know the existing law If the subsequent
law does repeal the earlier rule, there can be no presumption of
an intention to repeal the earlier rule;
2. When two provisions of law, one being a general law and the
other being special law govern a matter, the court should
endeavour to apply a harmonious construction to the said
provisions. But where the intention of the rule making authority
is made clear either expressly or impliedly, as to which law
should prevail the same shall be given effect.
3. If the repugnancy or consistency subsists in spite of an effect to
read them harmoniously, the prior special law is not presumed
to be repealed by the later general law. The prior special law
will continue to apply and prevail in spite of the subsequent
general law. But where a clear intention to make a rule of
universal application by superseding the earlier special law is
2
AIR 2010 SC1932

6
 evident from the later general law, then the later general law,
will prevail over the prior special law.
4. Where a later special law is repugnant to or inconsistent with an
earlier general law, the later special law will prevail over the
earlier general law.

d. Principles of Harmonious Construction

When it is clear that an inconsistency between two provisions of a
statute is not intended by the Legislature and hence, if it is apparent,
the same must be resolved by the courts in such a manner that both
conflicting provisions remain effective, in harmony with each other. But
where it is not possible to give effect to both the conflicting provisions
harmoniously, then head on collision should be avoided by holding
that:
1. apparently conflicting provisions deal with separate situations, or
2. one conflicting provision merely provides for an exception of
general rule contained in the other provision. For this purpose, it
is to be determined which of the two apparently conflicting
provisions is more general and which one is more specific and
then to construe the more general one as to exclude more
specific. LORD HERSCHELL says that when inconsistent
provisions cannot be reconciled, it should be determined which is
leading provision and which is subordinate provision and which
should give way to other.

7
 e. Maxims
Only by determining hierarchy of provisions, it will be possible to give
each provision, a meaning which gives best effect to its purpose. This
principle is expressed in following two maxims:
1. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: The expression of one
thing implies the exclusion of others. Courts may apply this maxim
in harmonious construction to infer that if a particular provision
explicitly addresses a matter, it excludes other matters not
mentioned.
2. Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant: Special provisions prevail
over general provisions. In harmonious construction, courts give
precedence to specific statutes over general statutes when
interpreting related provisions, ensuring that the specific
legislative intent is not overridden by broader principles.

f. Conclusion
Harmonious construction serves as a guiding principle in statutory
interpretation, fostering coherence, and consistency within the legal
framework. By reconciling conflicting provisions and honoring
legislative intent, courts uphold the rule of law and promote certainty in
legal outcomes. Grounded in principles of interpretation and fortified by
maxims, harmonious construction stands as a cornerstone of judicial
reasoning, ensuring that the unity of legislative purpose prevails in the
application of statutes.

8
 2. STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE

a. Introduction
In the interpretation of statutes, one fundamental principle is that
statutes must be read as a whole in their context. This principle, often
referred to by its Latin maxim "Visceribus Actus," underscores the
importance of considering the entirety of a statute, including its
language, structure, and purpose, in order to discern the legislative
intent accurately. underscores the importance of considering the
entirety of a statute, including its text, purpose, and surrounding
circumstances, to ascertain legislative intent accurately.
An important principle of interpretation is that the statute should be
read as a whole. No provision in statute and no words in a section
should be construed in isolation. All parts of the statute should be
taken as a whole

b. Meaning
Visceribus Actus, translated as "from the bowels of an act,"
emphasizes the holistic approach to statutory interpretation. It signifies
that each provision of a statute must be understood and interpreted in
light of the entire statutory scheme, rather than in isolation. The
principle of Visceribus Actus requires interpreting statutory provisions
in their proper context. This involves considering the language,
structure, and purpose of the statute as a whole, as well as its
legislative history and surrounding provisions.
Courts presume that legislators intend statutes to be consistent and
coherent. Therefore, when interpreting individual provisions, courts

9
strive to give effect to the overall legislative scheme and avoid
interpretations that would render other provisions meaningless or
contradictory.

c. Relevant case Laws:

In the case of Jones v. Secretary of State for Social Services 19723,

Lord Diplock elucidated the principle of Visceribus Actus by stating that
"the meaning of particular expressions in a statute must take their
colour from the context and in the context in which they are used."
In State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India 19644 The Supreme Court
observed that to determine the intentof legislature, only particular
section of the statute not only see but whole statute should be read to
determine true intentionand to discover the purposes of the legislature.
In Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Millspvt. Ltd. AIR 20035 the
Hon’ble Apex Court opined that one of the basic principle of the
construction of statute is that it should be readas a whole, then
chapter, section by section and word by word.

d. Principles

1. Contextual Interpretation: The principle of Visceribus Actus

requires interpreting statutory provisions in their proper context.
3
AC 944
4
1963 AIR 1241
5
AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 511

10
 This involves considering the language, structure, and purpose of
the statute as a whole, as well as its legislative history and
surrounding provisions.

2. Presumption of Consistency: Courts presume that legislators

intend statutes to be consistent and coherent. Therefore, when
interpreting individual provisions, courts strive to give effect to the
overall legislative scheme and avoid interpretations that would
render other provisions meaningless or contradictory.

3. Harmonization of Provisions: Visceribus Actus encourages

harmonizing different provisions of a statute to achieve a coherent
and sensible interpretation. Where apparent conflicts arise, courts
seek to reconcile them by interpreting the provisions in a manner
that gives effect to the legislative intent behind each provision.

e. Conclusion
The principle of reading statutes as a whole, encapsulated by
Visceribus Actus, is essential for achieving a coherent and faithful
interpretation of legislation. By examining statutes in their entirety and
considering their context, courts can discern the legislative intent and
give effect to the overall statutory scheme. Through adherence to this
principle, the judiciary ensures consistency, coherence, and fidelity to
legislative purpose in statutory interpretation, thereby upholding the
rule of law.

11