Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts of a statute then the rule of
harmonious construction needs to be adopted. 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 of 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.

The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of any statute. An interpretation
which makes the enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the Courts and a construction
which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or parts of the statute should be
adopted. The Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, in the words of the Apex Court, between the
different parts of an enactment and conflict between the various provisions should be sought to be
harmonized. The normal presumption should be consistency and it should not be assumed that what is
given with one hand by the legislature is sought to be taken away by the other. The rule of harmonious
construction has been tersely explained by the Supreme Court thus, “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”. A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a
dead letter should be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.

Harmonious Construction should be applied to statutory rules and courts should avoid absurd or
unintended results. It should be resorted to making the provision meaningful in the context. It should be
in consonance with the intention of Rule makers. Rule of Harmonious construction is applicable to
subordinate legislature also.

The Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the landmark case
of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe
the contradictory provisions 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 its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences. When it is impossible to
completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such
as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.

3. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or
dead is not harmonious construction.

To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

Cases on Harmonious Construction

1. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore

In this case the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious construction in resolving a conflict
between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution and it was held that the right of every religious
denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion [Article 26(b)] is
subject to a law made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].

2. Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Limited v State of West Bengal

The Legislative Assembly of WB passed the Oriental Gas Company Act in 1960. The respondent sought to
take over the management of the Gas Company under this Act. The appellant challenged the validity of
this act by holding that the state Legislative Assembly had no power to pass such an under Entries 24
and 25 of the State List because the Parliament had already enacted the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 under Entry 52 of the Central List dealing with industries. It was observed by the
Supreme Court that there are so many subjects in three lists in the Constitution that there is bound to
be some overlapping and it is the duty of the courts in such situation is to yet to harmonise them, if
possible, so the effect can be given to each of them. Entry 24 of the State List covers entire Industries in
the State. Entry 25 is only limited to the Gas industry. Therefore Entry 24 covers every industry barring
the Gas Industries because it has been specifically covered under Entry 25. Corresponding to Entry 24 of
the State List, there is Entry 52 in the Union List. Therefore, by harmonious construction it became clear
that gas industry was exclusively covered by Entry 25 of the State List over which the state has full
control. Therefore, the state was fully competent to make laws in this regard.

3. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v Radha Krishna

Under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, criminal prosecution of the
respondent partners was sanctioned in this case by the Commissioner when even after repeated
demands the assesse did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged this provision on the ground
that there were two separate provisions under the Act, namely, section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c
under which two different procedures were prescribed to realize the amount due but there was no
provision of law which could tell that which provision should be applied in which case. According to the
Supreme Court, the provision prescribed u/s 46 (1) c was more drastic. It was held that by harmonious
construction of these two provisions, the conclusion drawn is that the Commissioner had a judicial
discretion to decide as to which procedure to be followed in which case. Whenever the Commissioner
will fail to act judicially, the court will have the right to intervene. However, in this case, the
Commissioner had correctly decided that the more drastic procedure under section 46 (1) c deserved to
be followed because of the failure of the assesse firm in paying sales tax despite the repeated demands
by the sales tax officer.
Rule of Beneficial Construction

Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes. When there are two
or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the meaning which gives relief and protects
the benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation, should be chosen. A beneficial statute
has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent. Although beneficial
legislation does receive liberal interpretation, the courts try to remain within the scheme and not extend
the benefit to those not covered by the scheme. It is also true that once the provision envisages the
conferment of benefit limited in point of time and subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, their
non-compliance will have the effect of nullifying the benefit. There should be due stress and emphasis to
Directive Principles of State Policy and any international convention on the subject.

There is no set principle of construction that a beneficial legislation should always be retrospectively
operated although such legislation such legislation is either expressly or by necessary intendment not
made retrospective. Further, the rule of interpretation can only be resorted to without doing any
violence to the language of the statute. In case of any exception when the implementation of the
beneficent act is restricted the Court would construe it narrowly so as not to unduly expand the area or
scope of exception. The liberal construction can only flow from the language of the act and there cannot
be placing of unnatural interpretation on the words contained in the enactment. Also, beneficial
construction does not permit rising of any presumption that protection of widest amplitude must be
deemed to have been conferred on those for whose benefit the legislation may have been enacted.

Beneficial Construction of statutes have enormously played an important role in the development and
beneficial interpretation of socio – economic legislations and have always encouraged the Indian
legislators to make more laws in favour of the backward class of people in India.

Beneficial Construction in Socio – Economic legislations

Socio-economic legislation which is aimed at social or economic policy changes, the interpretation
should not be narrow. Justice Krishna Iyer in a case relating to agrarian reforms observed that “the
judiciary is not a mere umpire but also an active catalyst in the constitutional scheme”.

In the case of Sant Ram v Rajinderlal, the Supreme Court said that welfare legislation must be
interpreted in a third World perspective favoring the weaker and poor class. It has also been laid down
in the case of labor legislation that courts should not stick to grammatical constructions but also have
regard to ‘teleological purpose and protective intendment of the legislation. Interpretation of labor
legislations should be done by the courts with more concern with the colour, the context and the
content of the statute rather than its literal import.

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is one of welfare statute which intends to bring about peace and harmony
between management and labour in an industry and improve the service conditions of industrial
workers which in will turn accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its prosperity. As a
result the prosperity of the country in turn will help to improve the conditions of the workmen.
Therefore this statute should be interpreted in such a way that it advances the object and the purpose
of the legislation and gives it a full meaning and effect so that the ultimate social objective is achieved.
The courts while interpreting labour laws have always stressed on the doctrine of social justice as
enshrined in the Preamble of Constitution.

Beneficial Construction – A tendency rather than a rule

It is said by Maxwell, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not a rule. The reason is that this
principle is based on human tendency to be fair, accommodating, and just. Instead of restricting the
people from getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends to include as many classes as it can while
remaining faithful to the wordings of the statute. For example, in the case of Alembic Chemical Works v
Workman, an industrial tribunal awarded more number of paid leaves to the workers than what Section
79(1) of Factories Act recommended. This was challenged by the appellant. SC held that the enactment
being welfare legislation for the workers, it had to be beneficially constructed in the favor of worker and
thus, if the words are capable of two meanings, the one that gives benefit to the workers must be used.

When a statute is meant for the benefit of a specific class, and if a word in the statute is capable of two
meanings, one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not, then the meaning that
would preserve the benefits must be adopted and shall be followed by the court of law. It is important
to note that omissions will not be supplied by the court. Only when multiple meanings are possible, can
the court shall pick the beneficial one. Thus, where the court has to choose between a wider mean that
carries out the objective of the legislature better and a narrow meaning, then it usually chooses the
former meaning carrying out the objective of the legislation. Similarly, when the language used by the
legislature fails to achieve the objective of a statute, an extended meaning could be given to it to
achieve that objective, if the language is fairly susceptible to the extended meaning.

Limitation On The Application Of Beneficial Construction

If on the application of the rule of beneficial construction, the court finds that it is doing complete
justice and delivering a fair judgment then there is no question of why should not such rule is applied?
But there are certain restrictions which the court has to take care of which at the time of application
have to be adhered to –

1. Where the courts find that by the application of the rule of beneficial construction, it would be re
legislating a provision of statute either by substituting, adding or altering any provision of the act.

2. Where any word in a statute confers to a single meaning only. Then the courts should refrain from
applying the rule of benevolent construction to the statute.

3. When there is no ambiguity in a provision of a statute so construed. If the provision is plain,

unambiguous and does not give rise to any doubt, the rule of beneficial construction cannot be applied.
Conclusion
The conclusion shall be the final analysis of the comparison between the rule of Harmonious
Construction and rule of Beneficial Construction. Harmonious construction is only applied where there
are a conflict between the meaning coming out of two different sections and the meaning land the
courts in dubious situation of which section to apply? Whereas, the rule of Beneficial Construction is
applied in the cases where any construction may do any benefit to the society or any group of people
and are basically applied in the socio – economic legislations. Here there is no conflict between the
meanings of any two sections and meanings attributed to them.

Therefore the rule of Harmonious Construction and Beneficial Construction both play an important in
the interpretation of statutes and are two important rules of interpretation.