Rule Of Harmonious

Construction &
Fundamental Rights
- Apurva Sule
- Akash Pawar
- Aniket Kolapate
- Aishwarya Patil
Rule Of Harmonious Construction

 When there is a conflict between two or more statues and two or more than two provisions of
the same act are inconsistent with each other then it must be interpreted in such a manner that
effect should be given to both.
 The rule follows a very simple premise that every statue has a purpose and intent as per law and
should be read as a whole.
 In the case in which it is impossible to harmonize both the province, the court’s decision for
regarding the provision shall be prevail.
CIT vs Hindstan Bulk Carriers.
 Avoiding conflicts.
 Preserving Provisions.
 The effect on both Provisions by court’s interpretation.
 Court can’t reduce the interpretation to useless number or dead interpretation as it may not
amount to harmonious construction.
 To Harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision
Fundamental Rights

• Six types of Fundamental Rights

 1. Right to Equality (14-18)

 2. Right to Freedom of Expression (19-22)

 3. Right against Exploitation (23-24)

 4. Right to Religion (25-28)

 5. Cultural and Educational Rights (29-30)

 6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (32)

Shankari Prasad Union Vs. Union of
India
 In the instance of Shankari Prasad v. UOI (1951), the validity of
the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged before
the Supreme Court of India. In this curtailing the right to property
as under Article 31 was challenged before the apex court. The
argument made was as under Article 13 of the Constitution of India,
the word “law” included all sorts of law including the law which can
amend the constitution, and therefore the validity of such law can be
judged with respect to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution of India states that “All
laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of
such inconsistency, be void.” It also prevents the state from making
any such law.
 The Court used the literary rule of interpretation and held that the
word “law” included merely the rules, regulations or any such laws
made in the course of ordinary legislative power and that a
Constitutional Amendment Act is no such ordinary law. Thus, the
apex court upheld the validity of the Constitution First Amendment
Act, 1951, and said that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments
made under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. The court held
that the terms made under Article 13 are perfectly general and
empowers our parliament to amend the constitution by virtue of the
powers as given under Article 368.
 Article 13 and Article 368 the two articles which are very widely
phrased, and the court using the harmonious rule of construction to
avoid conflicts can be seen.
Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. Vs State
of Mysore & Ors
 It was an appeal by the trustees of the ancient temple of Sri Venkatramana
managing the temple on behalf of Saraswath Brahmins. After passing of the
Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947, it objected the removal of
disability of Harijans from entering Hindu temples. But the trustees
objected that the temple was private and was inconsistent to the act, but
was refused by the govt. The trustees challenged the same in court stating
that they have administrative independence under Article 26. But the same
was rejected by the high court and hence the case went on to the Supreme
Court.
 The respondents contended that the right to freedom of religion under
article 25 confers on every individual to profess, practice and
propagate their religious beliefs. And further article 25(2)(b) specifies
throwing open of all Hindu institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus.
The act protects the article 15. Upon Hearing the parties the court affirmed
the view of the HC and held that the complete exclusion of general public
will amount to violation of Article 25 and therefore the temple authorities
may be permitted to exclude general public only in those ceremonies which
are integral in nature and performed by the members of Gowda Saraswath
Brahmins alone. Therefore, the harmonious construction to resolve the
dispute between Article 25 and 26.
Conclusion

In such cases, the laws of statute interpretation apply, and the

provisions are construed to give them the most effect and to make justice to the
situation at hand. In reading laws, the concept of harmonious construction is very
important and is used in a lot of situations. 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.