Introduction
The Indian democracy is governed by its four pillars: the legislative, the executive, the judiciary, and the president. All three bodies, under the supervision of the President, work together in coordination to ensure that our country runs smoothly without any errors. The law-making body, the Legislative, works towards making accurate and error-free laws for the people of India. They form these laws with the utmost care and detail, leaving almost no room for doubt. Although these laws are often seen as adequate in every situation, there are instances in which they tend to get in conflict with one another. In such circumstances, the courts then apply the doctrine of harmonious construction. This doctrine is applied in situations of 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. Thus, this doctrine constructs harmony or oneness among various provisions and laws so that the court can come to a fair and unbiased conclusion.
Let’s understand this with a very simple illustration.
In a household, a mother asks her two sons, Ram and Shyam, about what she should make for dinner. Ram loves Rajma and requests his mother to cook the same, whereas Shyam loves chicken curry. The only problem is that Ram hates chicken curry and Shyam hates Rajma. Now what does the mother do to please both her sons in such a way that neither feels bad or dejected? What she can do is cook both in a lesser quantity so that both her sons are happy and no food goes to waste.
Provisions laid down by the Apex Court
In CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers[1], the Supreme Court laid down five principles of harmonious construction, which brought clarity regarding the doctrine and solidified it further, giving it a more polished and clear meaning. Those five points are as follows:
-
- The courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradictory provisions, and they must construe the contradictory provisions to harmonise them.
-
- The provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat the provisions contained in another unless the Court, despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
-
- When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the Court must interpret them in such a way that effect is given to both provisions as much as possible.
-
- Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or dead is not harmonious construction.
-
- To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or render it fruitless.
The Landmark Judgement
[1]Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hindustan Bulk Carriers on 8 October,2002, AIR2002SC3491.
[2]Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India And State Of Bihar(And … on 5 October, 1951, AIR 458.
[3]The Constitution of India https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
[4]The Constitution of Indiahttps://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
came to the courts. The courts to resolve this conflict applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to come up with something that resolved the despite between the various articles. The court held that the Parliament can amend fundamental rights to erode disparities, but at the same time, the Parliament can’t misuse its legislative powers to take away or abridge fundamental rights. Thus, it was stated that both fundamental rights and directive principles are different sides of the same coin and should be read together.
The Re-Kerala Education Bill[5] (1951) is another landmark case where the Supreme Court used the doctrine of harmonious construction to reconcile the different clauses of the bill in conflict with the Constitution. Of the said bill, clause 3(5) said that new schools needed to comply with the bill and government rules; clause 15 allowed the government to take over certain types of schools; clause 8(3) made it compulsory for the aided schools to hand over collected fees to the government; clauses 9 to 13 dealt with school management, teacher salaries, and employment conditions; and clause 33 said that school management, teacher salaries, and employment conditions made it violative and discriminatory under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions); and Article 226 (power of the High Court to issue Writs). The Apex Court then analysed the whole bill and concluded that Clause 3(5), Clause 8(3), Clause 3(5), and clauses 9 to 13 offend Article 30(1) as far as Anglo-Indian educational institutions entitled to grant under Article 337 were concerned. The court held that “Christians, Muslims, and Anglo-Indians will certainly be minorities in Kerala” and therefore their rights will most certainly be protected. Clauses 8(3), Clauses 9–13, and Clause (5) didn’t offend Article 30(1) in any sense and were considered appropriate by the Court. Further, they held that Clause 15 didn’t offend or violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and neither did Clause 33 offend Article 226. The Court appreciated Clause 9, stating that it gave power to the government regarding the administration of aided schools.
Further cases like East India Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India[6]where the Supreme Court held that an act is to be read in totality and all the provisions mentioned in
[5]Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 vs _______on 22 May, 1958.
[6]East India Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India East on 15 November, 2000, AIR 2001.
it should be harmonized with each other for it to function as a whole, Sirsilk v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[7] where Section 17(1) and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act were at conflict where the prior made it mandatory for the Government to publish awards within 30 days of receipt in their Official Gazette whereas the later states that“A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement”[8], allowing the parties to resolve the issue at an individual level. The Supreme Court no doubt resolved the issue by directing the appropriate government to withhold the publication of the award in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties to the dispute, but nevertheless held that the provision for the publication of the award under Section 17(l) was mandatory and not directory. MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha[9], where Articles 19(1) and 194(3) were in question as to whether the prior one would triumph over the latter, which allows the Legislative Assembly of the State to prohibit freedom of speech and publication in light of power and authority. In this scenario, the court held that Article 19(1) would prevail as the former is a general provision and is a fundamental right, and the latter is a special provision. There are many more cases where this doctrine was used to reach a fair conclusion.
Conclusion
Thus, we can conclude by saying that the fundamental principle of this doctrine is to broaden the interpretation of the laws, provisions, and statutes that are formulated by the legislature. If, in any case, any sort of disparity or contradiction arises, the courts (judiciary) then find or construct a neutral and most appropriate middle way that in no way renders the meaning of any of the laws, provisions, or statutes void, thereby seeking a balanced interpretation of the above-mentioned laws, provisions, and laws.
[7]The Sirsilk Ltd. And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Another on 20 March, 1963, AIR 160.
[8]The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[9]Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others on 12 December, 1958, AIR 395.