THE RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

 

THE RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES


It may sometimes happen that two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant with each other, in such cases the Court attempts to construe the conflicting provisions in such a manner, if possible, as to give effect to both of them by harmonizing them with each other. This doctrine lays down a vital principle which is any provision of any statute should not be construed or interpreted alone or in isolation but should be construed or interpreted as a whole so as to remove any inconsistency or repugnancy may occur when interpreted in insolation.

 

Origin of The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

 

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction was established as a result of Court Interpreting a variety of cases. This theory was historically developed through the law of conciliation, which was first proposed in the case of C.P. and Berar General Clauses Act, 1939. The Doctrine’s creation can be traced back to the first amendment of the Constitution of India in 1951 which took place in the landmark judgement of the case Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India[1]. In this case the main issue was the disagreement between the Fundamental Rights which are laid down in Part III of the Indian Constitution and the Directive Principles which are laid down in the Part IV of the Indian Constitution. The Apex Court here applied the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction and stated that Fundamental Rights are granted against the State and they can be revoked only under certain conditions by the State. The Court here gave equal importance to both the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policies explaining that these two are two sides of the same coin and it is beneficial for them to work together. Similar view was held by the Apex Court in the famous case Re Kerala Education Bill[2] Case. In this case the Court further added that there is no inherent conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy and not any of these two is subordinate to the other,

 

The Main Principles which Govern the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

 

The case Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hindustan Bulk Carriers[3] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court laid down the following five main principles that are responsible with the task of governing the rule of harmonious construction:

 

1)   The Courts should try to avoid any conflict between seemingly disputing provisions and efforts must be made to construe the disputing provisions in such a way so as to harmonize them;

 

2)   It should be kept in mind at all time that any provision that is present in one section cannot become a mean which is used to overthrow the provision laid down under another section unless the Court is unable to find a way to settle their differences despite all its efforts;

 

3)   In the situation when the Court find it impossible to entirely reconcile the differences in inconsistent provisions, the Court must interpret them such that effect is given to both the provisions as far as possible;

 

4)   Courts must also take into account the vital principle that any such interpretation which makes any provision redundant and useless is against the very essence of the process of harmonious construction of statutes;

 

5)   It should be noted that Harmonizing of any two conflicting provisions does not mean that it is destroying any statutory provision or rendering such provision ineffective.

 

Legal Maxims that are Related to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

 

1)   Generalia Specialibus non-Derogant: Generalia Specialibus non-Derogant is a latin maxim which is used for statutory interpretation. Here, ‘Generalia’ stands for ‘General’ and ‘Specialibus’ stands for ‘Special’. When interpreted, it means that general laws do not prevail over special laws or, general laws do not detract from specifics.

 

When two statutes which are in apparent conflict are to be interpreted, then the provisions of the general statute must yield to those of special one. In such cases, the provisions of the special statute are preferred over the general statute as they are meant to address the subject in greater detail. In other words, this principle states where there are provisions in a special Act and also in a general Act on the same subject-matter which are inconsistent with each other, if the provisions of the Special Statute in such cases gives a complete rule regarding the concerned subject-matter, then the rules laid down by the provisions of the Special Act acts as an exception to the rules laid down by the provisions of the General Act regarding the said subject-matter.

 

This is because, when a law is in question before the Court, the Court assumes that the Legislature or the law-makers enacted the law which is under discussion while focusing on the welfare of society. Thus, repealing a law is not favored and is done only under exceptional circumstances. In case of any conflict or contradiction or inconvenience while interpreting the statutes, this maxim is applied.

 

2)   Generaliabus speciala derogant: This maxim means that the general rule that is to be followed when there is a conflict between two disputing statutes is that the latter statute retracts the previous one. This means that a prior specific law would yield to a later general law if two of the following conditions are satisfied:

 

i)             The two provisions are conflicting with each other;

 

ii)           There is some express reference in the later legislation regarding the previous one.

 

Method of Application of the Rule of Harmonious Construction of Statutes:

 

The Judicial Authorities have articulated some specific procedures regarding the proper application of the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction after reviewing numerous case laws. These specific procedures are as follows:

 

1)   Giving equal importance to both the conflicting provisions, thus reducing their inconsistency;

 

2)   When the provisions are seen to be fundamentally inconsistent and repugnant to each other they are to be read in their entirety and the complete enactment of such provisions must be taken into account;

 

3)   The provision with a broader reach of the contradicting provisions should be considered;

 

4)   Comparing the broad and narrow provisions, courts should analyze the broad law and see if there are any other concerns. No further thought is needed to be given if the result is fair and harmonizing both clauses can be done by giving them full weight separately. This is because legislature was absolutely aware of the situation while enacting the provisions and hence all provisions adopted must be given full effect;

 

5)   It is significant that Court establishes the degree that the Legislature wanted to grant one provision overriding authority over another.

 

References:

 

Websites-

 

·      iPleaders Blog ( https://blog.ipleaders.in/ )

 

·      Legal Service India (  https://www.legalserviceindia.com/ )

 

·      Indian Kanoon ( https://indiankanoon.org/ )

 

·      swarb.co.uk ( https://swarb.co.uk/ )

 

Books-

 

·      ‘The Interpretation of Statutes’ by Prof. T. Bhattacharya.

 


[1] 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89

[2] 1959 1 SCR 995

[3] AIR 2002 SC 3491, (2002) 177 CTR SC 531, 2002 258 ITR 399 SC, 2002 (7) SCALE 360, (2002) 7 SCC 705, 2003 TAXLR 102

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bridging the gap between Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 (BNS)

Image
  Introduction The legal landscape of India is a complex and ever-evolving entity. It is governed by a plethora of laws and regulations that have been enacted over the years to address various aspects of societal behavior and governance. Two significant legal frameworks that shape the Indian legal system are the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the relatively new entrant, the Bharatiya Nay Sanhita (BNS). In this article, we will explore the differences between these two legal codes and discuss the advantages of introducing the Bharatiya Nay Sanhita. I. Understanding the Indian Penal Code (IPC) The Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860 during British rule, serves as the bedrock of criminal law in India. It was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay and has undergone several amendments since its inception. The IPC defines various offenses, their punishments, and the procedures to be followed in criminal cases. It is an exhaustive document that covers a wide range of criminal activities, ...
Read more

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NATURAL PERSON AND JURISTIC PERSON WITH EXAMPLE.

Image
  DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NATURAL PERSON AND JURISTIC PERSON WITH EXAMPLE.    Introduction   In Jurisprudence, it is expressly stated that there are two kinds of person recognized by law and they are natural person and juristic person . Therefor it can be said that person is genus while natural person and juristic persons are its species. Below, the meaning definition and overall concept of person are explained in detail.   Person   v Meaning -   The word ‘Person’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘ persona ’. This term has a long history. At the beginning, the word persona simply used mean a mask. Later on, persona was used to denote the part played by a man in his life. Next to that, the very word was used to denote the man who played the part. Later, in Roman Law, the term became synonymous with the term caput . A slave had an imperfect persona . Lastly, the term was used in the sense of a being who is capable of sustaining rig...
Read more

DEFINITIONS & OBJECTIVES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Image
  DEFINITIONS & OBJECTIVES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES   DEFINITIONS & OBJECTIVES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES   Meaning of Interpretation:   The term ‘Interpretation’ has been derived from the Latin term ‘ Interpretari ’, which means to explain, expound, understand or to translate. Interpretation can be held to be a process of explaining, expounding or translating any text or anything in written form. Interpretation of Statutes basically denotes an act of discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute.   Definition of ‘Interpretation of Statutes’:   Interpretation can be defined as the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. Interpretation of the statutes is the procedure of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principl...
Read more