Supreme Court on Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 650, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. 

In short, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction means that when there are two conflicting and irreconcilable provisions in a law, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both.

 

The facts of the case are not relevant for our discussion as we would be simply discussing the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. Thus, let us understand the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court noted that if there are legal provisions that are capable of being interpreted in a manner that that may lead to inconsistencies or conflicts, then aid of principles of interpretation may be taken.

 

Secondly, the Court cited the case of Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras, (1985) 3 SCC 103, wherein it was held that “no canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole” and “the only recognised exception to this well-laid principle is that it cannot be called in aid to alter the meaning of what is of itself clear and explicit.”

 

Thirdly, the Court cited the case of Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, wherein it was held that “when the language is clear and explicit and the words used are plain and unambiguous, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses of the Act or Rules as the case may be, so far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.”

 

Fourthly, the Court cited the case of Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373, wherein five important principles relating to harmonious construction were laid down.

 

1. It is the duty of the courts to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them.

 

2. The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them.

 

3. When there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both.

 

4. An interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a “dead letter” or “useless lumber” is not harmonious construction.

 

5. To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose.

 

Fifthly, the Court cited the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, wherein it was observed that “the courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.”

 

Sixthly, the Court explained that when there is a choice between two possible interpretations, then the interpretation or construction that furthers the object of the statute or the law should be favoured.

 

Seventhly, according to the Court, intention of the legislature must be gathered while construing a legal provision as such manner of construction would help in “avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute.”

 

Eighthly, the Court noted that “a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” is not a harmonised construction.”

 

Ninthly, the Court further observed that “if more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability, and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile.”

 

And lastly, it was observed that “it is the court's duty to make what it can of the statute, knowing that the statutes are meant to be operative and not inept and that nothing short of impossibility should allow a court to declare a statute unworkable.”

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

Thus, I hope that the meaning of Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is clear by now. The Latin Maxims that explain this Doctrine are ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat’ and ‘exposition ex visceribus actus’.