“Rule of Harmonious Construction: An Indian Judicial Overview”

Partial Fulfilment of course of Interpretation of Statues and Principles of Legislation for the
requirement of the Degree B.A., LL.B. (Hons) for Academic Session 2022-2023

Submitted By: Asad Anwer

Roll-2113

Submitted to: Dr. Peter Ladis F

Month of Submission:September

Year of Submission: 2022

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA MITHAPUR,

800001

 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the B.A., LL. B (Hons.) Project Report titled “Rule
of Harmonious Construction: An Indian Judicial Overview” submitted at CHANAKYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of my work carried under
the supervision of Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other
degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

Asad Anwer

Course: B.A.,LL. B (Hons.)

SEMESTER – 7th

CNLU, PATNA

Dated: 019/09/2022

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show my gratitude towards my guide Dr.Peter Ladis F., Faculty of Interpretation
of Statutes and Principles of Legislation, under whose guidance, I have structured my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely

with the materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it in
the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped
me out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

AISHWARYA SHANKAR

SEMESTER 7th

CNLU, Patna

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction… ................................................................................................5.
2. Rules of Interpretation… ...............................................................................8.
3. Rule of Harmonious Construction: Meaning and Analysis ...........................11.
4. Principles of Harmonious Construction….....................................................14.
5. Indian Judicial Overview...............................................................................16.
6. Conclusion….................................................................................................18.
7. Bibliography…...............................................................................................20.

 INTRODUCTION

Enacted laws, especially the modern acts and rules, are drafted by legal experts and it could
be expected that the language used will leave little room for interpretation or construction.
But, the experience of all those who have to bear and share the task of application of the law
has been different. It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit
andunambiguous and thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and
explicit meaning of the words or phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove
all the doubts if any. Hence, the rule mentioned in the project is important for providing justice.

Meaning of Interpretation:

Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding and translating any text or anything in
written form. This basically involves an act of discovering the true meaning of the language
which has been used in the statute. Various sources used are only limited to explore the written
text and clarify what exactly has been indicated by the words used in the written text or the
statutes. Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law. This process is
commonly adopted by the courts for determining the exact intention of the legislature.
Because the objective of the court is not only merely to read the law but is also to apply it in a
meaningful manner to suit from case to case. It is also used for ascertaining the actual
connotation of any Act or document with the actual intention of the legislature. There can be
mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be done by applying various
norms and theories of interpretation which might go against the literal meaning at times. The
purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in the statutes which
might not be thatclear. The art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactmenttheir natural and ordinary meaning.

It is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is
not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which
have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes
called ‘rules of interpretation’. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret
and apply legislation.

Reason for interpretation of statute:

For two basic reasons it is necessary:

1. To know about the legislative language: Legislative language may be complicated

fora layman, and hence may require interpretation.
2. To know the legislative intent: The intention of the legislature or Legislative
intentassimilates two aspects:
a. the concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means; and
b. the concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading
through the statute.

Harmonious Construction in a Nutshell:

The rule of harmonious construction is a principle of statutory interpretation used in the

Indian legal system. According to this principle of statutory interpretation, when two
provisions of legal text seem to be in conflict with each other, they should be interpreted so
that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant or nullified. The doctrine is based on a
cardinal principle in law that every statute has been formulated with a specific purpose and
intention and thereby should be read as a whole. This doctrine was originated by the courts in
a numberof cases which will be dealt in this project report in a systematic way.

There is always a possibility of ambiguity or gaps in the laws made by the legislature. To fill
those gaps, Harmonious Construction as a rule of interpretation of statutes plays a huge role
in giving maximum effect to the statutory provisions. Today, it is considered as a chief tool in
hands of our Judiciary, the rule helps two confronting laws work together harmoniously in
delivering justice to society at large.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

1. To know about different rules of interpretation of statutes.

2. To study about the subject matter of Rule of harmoniums Construction
3. To study about the relevant case laws and judicial overview

HYPOTHESIS:

 Rule Of Harmonious Construction removes discrepancy between two or more statues or

section of statute

.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology used in the project report is the doctrinal method of research.

SOURCES:

Primary Sources: Observations, Government Documents, Internet Communications on Email,

Blogs, Newsgroup.

Secondary Sources: Reference Books, Commentaries, Works of Interpretation, Textbooks,

Abstracts.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

The researcher will confine the research to the city of Patna, Bihar. Due to the constraints, the
researcher will include work published in book and internet. Due to pandemic period the
researcher has confined to doctrinal method of research. Due to a limited period of time the
researcher depended on the existing material.

SCOPE:
To understand the rule of harmonious construction in the context of the Indian judicial
systemand to understand the importance of this rule of interpretation.



 RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Various kinds of statutory interpretations are recognised. The rules of interpretation are
described in the following ways:

1. Literal Rule of Interpretation- According to this rule, the words used in this text are
tobe given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation,
if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a
provision of a statute regardless of what may be the consequences. The basic rule is
that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has been
expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of
grammar.
It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the legislature
is deduced from the words and the language used. According to this rule, the only
duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute is plain and has no
business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only obligation of the
court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then the remedy
for it shallbe sought and looked out by the legislature.
In C. Ronald v. U.T. Andaman Nicobar Islands,1 it was held that where words of statute
are clear then there is no scope for court to innovate or to take upon itself task of
amending statutory provisions. In Union of India v. R. Vasudeva Murthy,2 it was held
that when the words employed are clear, plain and unambiguous, then they are
reasonably susceptible to only one meaning. Courts are bound to give effect to said
meaning irrespective of the consequences.
2. Contextual Interpretation- Although the rule of literal construction is the most
effective and safe method to interpret a statutory provision, yet it has its own
limitations. It fails when words are ambiguous, or the language is susceptible to
alternative constructions, or the results are absurd, unreasonable or unjust, or the law
turns to futility by strict application thereof.3 In that case, the contextual interpretation
maybe resorted to. According to this rule, a word should receive such meaning as is

1 C. Ronald v. U.T. Andaman Nicobar Islands, (2011) 12 SCC 428

2 Union of India v. R. Vasudeva Murthy, AIR 2010 SC 2879: 2010 (9) SCC 30
3 D.N. Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Agency, Fifth Edition (2018).
8

 suggested by the context in which it is used. In other words, the meaning to a word
must be assigned by reference to a context. It is said that the words take colour
from the context in which they are used. The contextual interpretation is most
acclaimed method to arrive at the legislative intent. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v.
Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.,4 it was held that the words in a statute or
a document are to be interpreted in the context or subject-matter in which the words
are used.
3. Golden Rule of Interpretation- It is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a
judge to depart from a word’s normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
It is a compromise between the rule of interpretation and the rule of mischief. To be
used in two ways-
➢ It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity
or absurdity in the words themselves.
➢ It is used in a wider sense to avoid a result that is obnoxious to the principles
ofpublic policy.
It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The
rule says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation
given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice,
inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal meaning shall be
discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a manner that the purpose of the
legislation is fulfilled. The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural
meaning of the words used in the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to
any sought of repugnance, absurdity or hardship, then the court must modify the
meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity caused and no further to prevent the
consequence. This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation
deserve a lot more important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the
words used by the legislature and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the
interpretation done may entirely be opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified
because of the golden rule. The presumption here is that the legislature does not
intendcertain objects. Thus, any such interpretation which leads to unintended objects

4 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd, (2013) 7 SCC 369
9

 shall be rejected. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,5 the majority opinion was that
although normally plain, ordinary and grammatical meaning of enactment is the best
method yet other methods of extracting the meaning can be resorted to if the language
is contradictory, ambiguous or leads readily to absurd results.
4. Mischief Rule: Purposive Construction- Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s
case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive construction because the purpose of this
statuteis most important while applying this rule. It is known as Heydon’s rule because
it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is called as mischief rule
because thefocus is on curing the mischief.
In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed
for true and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
➢ What was the common law before making of the act.
➢ What was the mischief for which the current statute was enacted.
➢ What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure
the disease of the commonwealth.
➢ The true reason of the remedy.
In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar,6 the Supreme Court explained this rule
and observed that it is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in
England as far back as 1584 when Heydon’s case was decided. After following the four
things, the judges shall make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy.

Secondary rules of interpretation are also there. One such secondary rule is that of Noscitur a
sociis, when two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they
are understood to be used in their cognate sense. The words take their colour from and are
quantified by each other, the meaning of the general words being restricted to a sense
analogous to that of the less general. When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be
determined by reference to the rest of the statute. Thus, under the doctrine of “noscitur a
sociis” the questionable meaning of a word or doubtful words can be derived from its

5 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569

6 Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661

10

 association withother words within the context of the phrase.7 Another such secondary rule is,
Reddendo singula singulis, where a complex sentence has more than one subject, and more
than one object, it may be the right construction to render each to each, by reading the
provision distributively and applying each object to its appropriate subject.

7 (Sep 18, 2022, 9:41 PM), https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.

11



 RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION: MEANING AND

ANALYSIS
The term harmonious construction refers to such construction by which harmony or oneness
amongst various provisions of an enactment is arrived at. Dictionary meaning of the word
“harmony” is agreement in opinion or pleasing combination. When the words of statutory
provision bear more than one meaning and there is a doubt as to which meaning should
prevail, then such meaning should be adopted by which the words best harmonize with the
subject and the subject of the enactment. It is presumed that the legislature has enacted a law
with a definite purpose. It is also presumed that legislature have used precise words to open
their mind and have left no ambiguity in the language of the enactment. It is further presumed
that all the provisions of a statute are well composed and consistent with each other because the
legislature is not supposed to contradict itself by providing conflicting provision. Hence, the
statute should be construed in such a manner so as to avoid any repugnancy. An inconsistency
should neither be created nor be readily inferred. Where all alternatives’ constructions are
possible, that construction should be accepted by which consistency is achieved and the
constructions leading to inconsistency should be rejected. The intention of legislature is that
every provision should remain operative.8 But where two provisions are contradictory, it may
not possible to effectuate both of them and in result, one shall be reduced to futility as against
the settled basic principle of ut res magis valeat qauam pereat. Therefore, such a construction
should be allowed to prevail by which existing inconsistency is removed and both the
provisions remain in force, in harmony with each other. It brings harmony among the various
lists referred to in Indian constitution schedule 7. It is a cardinal rule of construction that
when there are two provisions of the same law are conflict with each other that both of them
cannot stand together they shouldpossibly be so interpreted that effect can be given to both and
that a construction which renders any of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted
except in the last resort.

Origin of the Doctrine.

The Doctrine of Harmonious construction was originated through interpretations given by

courts. The evolution of the doctrine can be traced back to the very first amendment made in

8 (Sep 19, 2022, 9:41 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/

12

 the Constitution of India with the landmark judgment of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India.9
The case dealt upon the conflict between part III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive
Principles of State Policy) that form as basic features of the Indian Constitution.

The court applied the rule of Harmonious Construction and held that Fundamental rights
beingrights given against the state can be taken away in certain situations and can be amended
as well by the Parliament to bring them in conformity with constitutional provisions.
Preference was given to both and it was decided that FRs and DPSPs are just two different
sides of the same coin that requires working together for public good.

Historically, this doctrine was evolved through the rule of conciliation first propounded in the
case of C.P and Berar Act.10 The court applied this rule of interpretation to avoid overlapping
or inconsistency between entry 24 and entry 25 of State list and read them harmoniously by
determining the extent of the concerned subjects.

Objective of the Rule of Harmonious Construction.

The objective of harmonious construction is to avoid any confrontation between two enacting
provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way so that the harmonize.
The basis of this rule is that the Legislature never envisages to provide two conflicting
provisions in a statute, for the reason that it amounts to self-contradiction. The real legislative
intent, that we try to discover in the process of interpretation cannot be to provide for
something in one provision and deny the same in subsequent one. Hence, even if an
inconsistency is found, the same should be considered to be unintentional and as such, is
required to be cured by way of harmonious construction.

Observations.

Venkatrama Aiyer J observed that the provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to
defeat those of another unless it is impossible to reconcile them. Where two provisions of an
enactment cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if
possible, the effect should be given to both. This is what is known as rule of Harmonious
Construction.

9 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR (1951) SC 455.

10 Re C.P. and Bare Act, AIR (1939) FC 1.
13

 In New India Sugar Mills Ltd. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar11; Justice Shah observed that
it is a recognized principle of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should
ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonize with the object of the
statuteand which effectuate the object of legislature.

The object of Harmonious Construction is to avoid any confrontation between two enacting
provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way so that they harmonize.
The basis of this rule is that the legislature never envisages to provide two conflicting in a
statute, for the reason that it amounts to self-contradiction. The real legislative intent, that we
try to discover in the process of interpretation cannot be to provide for something in one
provision and deny the same in the subsequent one. Hence, even if an inconsistency is found,
the same should be considered to be unintentional and as such, is required to be cured by way
of harmonious construction. 12

11 New India Sugar Mills Ltd. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1207
12 D.N. Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Agency, Fifth Edition (2018).
14

 PRINCIPLES OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

In view of foregoing discussions, it is clear that an inconsistency between two provisions of a

statute is not intended by the legislature and hence, if it is apparent, the same must be
resolved by the courts in such a manner that both conflicting provisions remain effective, in
harmony with each other. But where it is not possible to give effect to both the conflicting
provisions harmoniously, then head on collision should be avoided by holding that:

➢ Apparently conflicting provisions deal with separate situations, or

➢ One conflicting provision merely provides for an exception of general rule contained
in the other provision. For this purpose, it is to be determined which of the two
apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which one is more specific and
then to construe the more general one as to exclude more specific. Lord Herschell
says that when inconsistent provisions cannot be reconciled, it should be determined
which is leading provision and which is subordinate provision and which should give
way to other. Only by determining hierarchy of provisions, it will be possible to give
each provision, a meaning which gives best effect to this purpose. This principle is
based on two maxims namely- Generalia specialibus non derogant, which means for
the purposes of interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a
general statute must yield to those of a special one.13 According to this maxim,
generalthings do not take away the merit of special things.
In Karnataka State Financial Corp. v. N. Narasimahaiah,14 it was held that if special
provisions are made in derogation to the general right of a citizen, such statute should
receive strict construction. In Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India,15 the Supreme
Court held that Extradition Act, 1962, is a special statute and hence it would prevail
over the provisions of a general statute like Cr.P.C.
The other maxim is Generalibus specialia derogant, which means that special things
derogate from general things. So, special provision in a statute controls the general
provisions. In other words, general provisions have no application in the matters that

13(sep,19, 2022, 9:41 PM), http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/G/

GeneraliaSpecialibusNonDerogant.aspx
14 Karnataka State Financial Corp. v. N. Narasimahaiah, (2008) 5 SCC 176: AIR 2008 SC 1797.

15 Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 417.

15

 are governed by special provisions.

There are five principles of this Doctrine as laid down by the apex court of India in the case
of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carrier:

1. “While interpreting, the court has a duty to avoid a “head-on clash” at all cost
between two sections of the same act

2. The interpretation should be done such that the provision of one section doesn’t
defeat the purpose of another unless it is impossible to effect a reconciliation between
them

3. When it is impossible to reconcile the contradictory provisions, then courts

mustinterpret in a way to give as much as possible effect to both provisions

4. A Construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead

letter”is not harmonious construction

5. Lastly, to harmonize is not to destroy any other statutory provisions.” 16

The aforesaid principles give the basic yet clear explanations on the usage of the rule of
Harmonious Construction while interpreting parts of any statute.It is clear that there is always
a possibility of ambiguity or gaps in the laws made by the legislature. To fill those gaps,
Harmonious construction as a rule of interpretation of statutes plays a huge role in giving
maximum effect to the statutory provisions17. Today, considered asa chief tool in hands of our
Judiciary, the rule helps two confronting laws work together harmoniously in delivering
justice to society at large.

16 CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57.

17 (Sep ,19, 2022, 9:41 PM), https://www.legalbites.in/
16

 INDIAN JUDICIAL OVERVIEW

It is presumed that the legislature has enacted a law with a definite purpose. It is also
presumed that legislature have used precise words to open their mind and have left no
ambiguity in the language of the enactment. It is further presumed that all the provisions of a
statute are well composed and consistent with each other because the legislature is not
supposed to contradict itself by providing conflicting provisions. Hence, the statute should be
construed in such a manner so as to avoid repugnancy. The intention of Legislature is that
every provision of the statute should remain operative.

In Re Kerala Education Bill 1951, it was held that in deciding the fundamental rights the
courtmust consider the directive principle and adopt the principle of harmonious construction.
So, two possibilities are given effect as much as possible by striking a balance.

In another landmark case of East India Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India, it was held that an Act is
to be read as a whole, the different provisions have to be harmonized and the effect to be
given to all of them. In K. Anjaih v. Chandraiah,18 the Supreme Court observed that it is the
duty of court to harmoniously construe different provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation,
if possible and to sustain the same rather than strike down the provisions outright.

In the leading case of British Airways Plc. v. Union of India,19 it was held that an effort should
be made to give effect to all the provisions of a statute and for that any provision of the
statuteshould be construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make it workable- A
particular provision cannot be interpreted to defeat another provision made in that behalf
underthe statute.

In M.S.M Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha,20 the rule of harmonious construction was applied to
resolve the conflict between Article 19 (1)(a) and article 194(3) of the Constitution of India.
It was held that the right of freedom of speech guaranteed under 19(1) is to be read subject to
powers, privileges and immunities of House of Legislature as declared by article 194(3).

18 K. Anjaih v. Chandraiah, (1998) 3 SCC 218.

19 British Airways Plc. v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 95: AIR 2002SC 391.
20 M.S.M Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395
17

 In Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka,21 the issue before the Supreme Court was
whether section 51 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable in cases covered be
sections 4 and 5 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. It was held that the act is enacted for improving the social and
economic conditions of weaker sections of the society particularly those belonging to SC and
ST category. The act is a special act and would override the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 is not applicable to proceedings under section 4 and 5 of the Act.

In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading, it was held that if more than one interpretation is
possible for a statute than the court has to choose the interpretation which shows the
intentionof the legislature.

In SBEC Sugar Ltd. v. Union of India, It was held that a cardinal principle of construction is
that the provisions of the notification have to be harmoniously construed as to prevent any
conflict with the provisions of the statute.

In the case of Department of Customs vs Sharad Gandhi,22 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
again applied the principle of Harmonious construction to resolve the inconsistency between
the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and Customs Act, 1962. The Bench observed the
“inconsistency” found in Article 254 of Indian Constitution between laws made by
Parliament and state legislatures stating: If the law made by the state is repugnant to the law
made by the parliament, then law made by the parliament shall prevail to the extent of
repugnance. However, in the present case, the court observed that both the said act has been
made by Parliament.

In the case of Venkataramana Devaru v. the State of Mysore, the Supreme Court applied the
doctrine 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 provisions made by the State
providing for social welfare and reform or opening of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].

21 Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 780.

22 Department of Customs vs. Sharad Gandhi, SLP, (Crl.) No. 174 of 2019.
18

 CONCLUSION

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The
court aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To
ensurejustice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was expounded. These are the rules
which are evolved for determining the real intention of the legislature. It is not necessary that
the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and unambiguous and thus, in such cases
it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases
used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts if any. Hence, all the rules
mentioned in the article are important for providing justice.

Law is made by the legislature and there is a possibility of situations of ambiguity. In those
situations, the rule of interpretation of statutes come into play and the provisions are
construedso as to give maximum effect to them. The doctrine of harmonious construction has
helped judges to interpret the two confronting laws easily and helped in providing justice to
society at large. Thus, it is one of the most important tools in hands of the judiciary while
doing any interpretation of the statutes.

Every court is assigned a task of statutory interpretation and it should be performed with
utmost care and caution. The court can always interpret legislation in its own way and the
responsibility to understand the intent of the legislature while applying the doctrine also
stands solely with the court. The interpretation of different statutes differs in nature and it is
imperative that the interpretation comes out in a clear and unambiguous way. But, if both the
provisions are unclear, there will be no interpretation. They will only interpret when the
words are clear and in the case of any ambiguity the court will look into enacting provisions of
the statute. The court here will only apply the Literal interpretation and apply the popular
meaning. Regarding the law, every word has a meaning and the interpretation will become the
scope and beyond the reach of objectives and reasons for which the statute was enacted in the
legislature. Hence,the court should understand the importance of the ‘Doctrine of Harmonious
Construction’ and interpretation of statutes in general with its ever-increasing scope in the
present times. This rule 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 which is consistent with all the provisions and makes the enactment consistent

19

 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.23

The hypothesis in the project report stands proved as it was clearly held in the landmark case
of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carrier where five principles were laid down by the court. Out of
which, one of the principles clearly stated While interpreting, the court has a duty to avoid a
“head-on clash” at all cost between two sections of the same act” 24

23 Union of India v. B.S. Aggarwal, AIR 1998 S.C. 1537.

24 CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57
20

 21

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

1. D.N. Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Agency Publications, Fifth

Edition (Reprint) 2018.
2. Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, 14th Edition.
3. Avatar Singh, Introduction to the Interpretation of Statutes, Lexis Nexis, 5th Edition.
4. Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, Eastern Book Company, 5th Edition.

ARTICLES & JOURNALS:

1. OSBORN’S Law Dictionary.

2. SCC Online.
3. Manupatra.
4. Ms.Tusharika Singh Gaharvar, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.

WEBSITES:

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/
3. https://lawcirca.com/
4. https://www.legalbites.in/

22