Harmonious Construction
Meaning :- It is a well settled rule of construction that the provision of a statute should be so construed as to accord with the object of the enactment. The object of harmonious construction is avowedly to avoid a conflict between two enacting provision of the statute as far as possible and to construe the provision in a way so that they harmonize.
The rule has been stated by Supreme Court in Venkataraman Devaru vs State of Madras(AIR 1958 SC 255) in the following words - the rule is well settled that 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. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction.
Principles of the rule :- According to this rule,a statute should be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provision in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such an Interpretation in avoiding inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section and other parts of the statute.
The main principles of the rule as stated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, are-
1. The Court must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradictory provision and they must construe the contradictory provision so as to harmonize them.
2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another,unless the Court, despite all it's effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile there differences.
3. When It is impossible to completely reconcile the difference in contradictory provisions, the Court must interpret them in such a way so that effect is given to both the provision as much as possible.
4. Court 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.
But where it is not possible to give effect to both the conflicting provision harmoniously, then the head on collision should be avoided by holding that-
1. Apparently conflicting provisions deal with separate situations;
2. One conflicting provision merely provides for an exception of general rule contained in other provision.
A familiar approach in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which is more specific and to construe the more general one so as to exclude the more specific. This principle is expressed in the maxims -
1. Generalia specialibus non derogant - It means general things do not derogate from special things.
2. Generalibus specialia derogant- It means special things derogate from general things
Illustrative cases :- M.S.M. Sharma vs Krishna Sinha (AIR 1959 SC 395 ) the petitioner an editor of a newspaper was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished for a breach of privilege of the House guaranteed by Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India for publishing a speech made in the State Legislative Assembly without expunging certain remarks as directed by the Speaker.
In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution he argued that the proposed action against him would be contrary to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that,expediency demanded that Articles 19(1)(a) and 194(3) had to be harmoniously interpreted. To give effect to both the these provisions, it was necessary to hold that fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was subject to the privileges of Houses guaranteed by Article 194(3). The was therefore dismissed.
In Sirsilk Ltd. vs Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1964 SC 160) Section 17(1), 17(2) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 were interpreted by application of rule of harmonious construction
Section 17(1) states, ‘Every award shall
within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate government be published in such manner as the appropriate government thinks fit”.
The use of the word ‘shall’, the court observed, is a pointer to Section 17(1) being mandatory in nature.
Section 17(2) states, ‘Award published under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court in any manner whatsoever.
Section 18 (1) provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Now the question was that where a settlement has been arrived at, after receipt of award of the labour tribunal by the government but before it's publication, whether government was still required to publish the award under section 17(1).
It was held that only way of resolving the conflict between the two provisions was to hold that a settlement becomes effective from the date of singing and by settlement, Industrial dispute comes to an end and therefore award becomes infructuous and hence government cannot publish the award.
Though the Supreme Court maintained that Section 17 (1) is mandatory, and ordinarily the government has to publish an award sent to it by the tribunal, in special circumstances of the case and with a view to avoid a conflict between a settlement binding under Section 18 (1) and an award binding under Section 18 (3) on publication, it held that the only solution is to withhold
the publication of the award as this would not in any way affect the mandatory provision of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Conclusion :- Thus to sum up, it may be said that the object of harmonious construction is to effectuate the intention of the legislature. It is therefore essential for the Court to interpret the words, phrases and two provisions of a statute apparently conflicting with each other in such a manner as to accord with the intention of the legislature.
References:-
D.N.Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes
T.Bhattachariya, Interpretation of Statutes
K.P. Chakraborty, Interpretation of Statutes
