The term ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process through which one ascertains the true and correct intention of the law-making bodies as is laid in the form of statutes. It is a familiar feature of law and legal practices. Interpretation is an important aspect of the practice of law. The interpretation has a very important role in justice administration in the sense that it helps the legal system “understand” the law. Interpretation makes understanding possible of the subject. Interpretation is the art of finding out the true sense of any form or words; i.e. the sense which their framers intended to convey, and of enabling others to drive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey. Interpretation only takes place if the text conveys some meaning or other. Thus the courts are expected not to act arbitrarily and consequently, they are to follow the rules of interpretation. For interpretation of statute, the court has to apply some principles and rules, the rule of harmonious construction is one of them.
The rule of harmonious construction is used to avoid any inconsistency and repugnancy within a section or between a section and other parts of a statute. The rule follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation consistent with all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the case in which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision regarding the provision shall prevail. This principle is also used to resolve conflicts between two separate acts and in the making of statutory orders and rules. But if a person has two remedies, one being general and the other being specific, they continue to hold good for the concerned person until he elects one of them.
This doctrine is associated with two Latin maxims:
The first maxim is Generalia specialibus non derogant: The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the later repeals the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:
- The two are inconsistent with each other.
- There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment.
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.
The second maxim is Generalibus specialia derogant: The OSBORN’S Law Dictionary defines this maxim as, “Special things derogate from general things.”
In Union of India v. B.S. Aggarwal AIR 1998 S.C. 1537 case, the Court held that the interpretation which is consistent with all the provisions and makes the enactment consistent shall prevail. The doctrine follows a settled rule that an interpretation that results in injustice, hardship, inconvenience, and anomaly should be avoided.
The interpretation with the closest conformity to justice must be picked.
The Supreme Court laid down 5 main principles of the ‘Doctrine of Harmonious Construction’-
- In CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, p. 74 case, the Court held that the courts must avoid a ‘head of clash’ of contradictory provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
- In the same case, the Court held that courts must keep in mind that the interpretation which reduces one provision to a useless standing is against the essence of ‘Harmonious Construction’.
- To harmonize the provisions is not to render them fruitless or destroy any statutory provision.
- In Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain, AIR 1997 SC 1006, pp. 1009, 1010 case, the Court held that when it is not possible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the court must interpret them in such a way so as to give effect to both provisions as much as possible.
- The provision of one section cannot be used to render useless the other provision, unless the court, despite all its efforts, finds a way to reconcile the differences.
- To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
In the State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., AIR 1988 SC 1737, p. 1751 case, the Court observed that 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.
In Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 895 case, Venkatarama Iyer, J., observed: “The rule of construction is well settled that when an enactment 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.”
In M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395, p. 410 case, the same rule was applied by the Court to resolve the conflict between Articles 19(1)(a) and 194(3) of the Constitution and it was held that the right of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is the read as subject to powers, privileges, and immunities of a House of the Legislature which are those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as declared by the latter part of Article 194(3).
In Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, AIR 1965 SC 745, p. 761 case it was decided that Article 194(3) is subordinate to Articles 21, 32, 211, and 226. This conclusion was also reached by recourse to the rule of harmonious construction.
Conclusion:
Statutes are drafted by the legislature and there is every possibility of situations of ambiguity, conflicts, anomalies, absurdities, hardships, repugnancy, redundancy etc. In such situations, the rules of interpretation of statutes are applied and the provisions are construed so as to give maximum effect to them and to render justice to the situation at hand. The rule of harmonious construction is used to avoid any inconsistency and repugnancy within a section or between a section and other parts of a statute or a conflict between two or more statues. It helps in simplifying complicated issues and makes delivering judgments much easier.