Constitutional Law: Doctrine Of Harmonious Construction: Introduction: What Is The Doctrine?

Constitutional Law: Doctrine of Harmonious Construction Introduction: What is the Doctrine? “No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding.”  - Plato There are some basic rules of Interpretation of law. Interpretation can be defined as the method of finding out the true essence and objective of an enactment as per the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. As stated by SALMOND, "by interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed." In general the language of a statute signifies simple, plain and to the point explanation. Interpretation is particularly significant when there are some uncertain, ambiguous and repugnant provisions in the statute. The doctrine of harmonious construction needs to be referred to when there is a conflict between two or more statutes or two or more parts of a statute. A doctrine is a belief, principle, rule, theory or tenet of law – usually upheld by authorities like courts. There exist many doctrines in Indian judicial system. The doctrine of harmonious construction follows a very simple premise. It means that every statute has a purpose, objective and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation which is consistent of all the provisions of the statute needs to be followed. When it is impossible to harmonize the conflicting provisions, decision of the judiciary regarding the provision shall prevail. The aim of the Court is to give an interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole and a construction which is devoid of inconsistency, ambiguity or repugnancy between the various sections or parts of the statute. The Supreme Court thus explained the rule of harmonious construction as, “When there are, in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted, that if possible, effect should be given to both”. Its Evolution When article 368 and 13 (2) of Indian Constitution were found to be inconsistent, supreme court in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and State of Bihar 1951 AIR 458 applied this principle. Here the main controversy was whether Article 13 (2) of the Constitution created a limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court maintained both the provisions as Article 368 did not provide any 1

exception. It held that the Constitution, including fundamental rights, can be amended by Parliament under Article 368 because the power to amend is a sovereign power. But if Parliament, by exercising its legislative authority, makes such an amendment which takes away

or

abridges

the

fundamental

rights,

it

will

be

unconstitutional

and

void. Gajendragadkar C.J. in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1965 AIR 845 accepted this theory of sovereign power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights. In this case, apart from the amending power of the Parliament the Supreme Court pointed out the correlation between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State policy. Gajendragadkar C.J refered to the writings of G. Austin and said that Chapters III and IV of the Constitution are the conscious of the Constitution if conflict arises the courts should make an attempt to maintain both of them by applying the doctrine of harmonious construction. Salient Features 

Constitutional provisions must not be construed in isolation from all other parts of the Constitution rather should be construed to harmonize with the other parts.



When there is a conflict between two or more statutes or two or more parts of a statute then the doctrine of harmonious construction needs to be adopted.



According to this rule, a statute should be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be constructed with reference to other provisions in the same statute.



It brings harmony between the various lists referred to in Indian Constitution Schedule 7. (Union list, State list, and Concurrent list).



If a construction makes one part of provision of the enactment a dead letter, that should be avoided since harmonization does not necessarily mean destruction.



A provision of a statute should not be interpreted in isolation but as a whole, to avoid any inconsistency, ambiguity or repugnancy.



If two interpretations of law are possible and if one interpretation violates the harmony between the two while the other reinforces the harmony, the latter interpretation shall be accepted over the former.



However, if there is only one interpretation and that is conflicting them the court shall implement the fundamental rights over the directive principles because the SC is duty-bound to implement the fundamental rights.

2

Landmark judgments In Re Kerala Education Bill Case 1959 1 SCR 995 the SC used the rule of harmonious construction and ruled that there is no inherent conflict between part III and part IV of the constitution and they together constitute an integrated scheme. They are supplementary and complementary to each other. Therefore as far as possible any conflict among them should be avoided. They run parallel to each other and none is subordinate to the other. In Sri Venkataramana Devaruand Others Vs.The State of Mysore & Others 1958 AIR 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. The court said that right of every religious denomination to manage its own religious matters [Article 26(b)] is subject to a law made by a State intending 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)]. Thus the doctrine of harmonious construction was applied and both the provisions were upheld parallely. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v Radha Krishan 1979 AIR 1588 under section 46 (1) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Commissioner sanctioned criminal prosecution of the respondent partners because they did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged this provision on the ground that there were two separate provisions under the Act which are section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c. Ttwo different procedures were prescribed under these two provisions to decide the amount due but there was no provision of law which could tell that which provision should be applied in which case. Supreme Court held that, the provision u/s 46 (1) c was more drastic. By harmonious construction of these two provisions, the conclusion was that the Commissioner had a judicial discretion to decide which procedure to be followed in which case. If the Commissioner fails to act judicially, the court has the right to intervene. In the landmark case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003)3 SCC 57 the SC laid down some guidelines to be followed by the court while applying this doctrine.

3

The five main principles of this rule are: 1.     The courts should try to avoid a head on clash of conflicting 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 is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences despite all its effort. 3.    When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in conflicting provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a way that both the provisions are given effect 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. Critical Analysis There exist two legal maxims related to this doctrine. (A) Generalia specialibus non derogant:  This means that the general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. It means that a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if at least one of the two following conditions is satisfied: 1.      The two are inconsistent with each other. 2.      There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment. The later law, even though general, would prevail if either of the conditions is satisfied. (B)  Generalibus specialia derogant: The Osborn’s Law Dictionary defines this maxim as, “Special things derogate from general things.” In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754, the Supreme Court observed that, Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 deals with the payment of increment is in general terms and at the same time the schedule in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 has a special provision governing the untrained teachers. Here the maxim ‘Generalibus specialia derogant’ was applied i.e., if a special provision is made on a certain subject, that subject is excluded from the general provision in case both are contradicting each other. We might add that a construction which is unduly restrictive of the statutory provisions intended for the protection of the interest of the minor must be avoided. When the rules are

4

legislative in character they must be interpreted harmoniously as a connected whole giving life and force to each word, phrase and rule and no part thereof should be rendered nugatory or a surplus age. Resort to iron out the creases can be had only when the construction of the relevant rule, phrase or word would lead to unintended absurd results. Conclusion Legislature drafts the statutes and there stands every possibility of ambiguity, absurdities, conflicts, anomalies, hardships, redundancy, repugnancy etc in these statutes. In these circumstances the rules of interpretation of statutes come into play and the provisions are construed in such a way that maximum effect is given to them. The principle of harmonious construction has a crucial role in interpreting statutes and this has been used in numerous cases. The doctrine of harmonious construction has helped judges to easily interpret two confronting laws and has been proved as beneficial in delivering justice to society at large. Thus, it is one of the significant tools in the hand of the judiciary while doing an interpretation of the statutes and subordinate statutes. It was rightly said by George Washington, “The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of the government.” Thus, it is the responsibility of Indian Judiciary to interpret the statutes properly and intelligently applying the rules for interpretation of statutes to work towards achieving equity, justice and good conscience.

5