Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

V Deepa
What is this doctrine about?

The doctrine of harmonious construction is a legal principle that is used to

interpret conflicting provisions in a law or statute. Essentially, it means that
when there are two or more provisions in a law that appear to conflict with
each other, courts should try to interpret them in a way that makes them work
together harmoniously, rather than interpreting them in a way that creates a
conflict.
Examples

1. Let's say one law requires that all businesses close on Sundays, while
another law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. If a business
owner who practices a religion that requires them to close their business
on Saturdays and not on Sundays were to challenge these laws, a court
could apply the doctrine of harmonious construction and interpret the
two laws in a way that does not discriminate against the business owner's
religious practices. This could mean allowing the business owner to close
their business on Saturdays instead of Sundays, even though the first law
requires all businesses to close on Sundays.
Examples
1. A city ordinance prohibits the use of amplified music after 10 pm, while a state law protects the right to free speech. If a person
wants to hold a protest that involves amplified music after 10 pm, the doctrine of harmonious construction would require that
the two laws be read together in a way that allows for the protest, while still maintaining peace and order in the community.
2. A law requires that all employees be paid a minimum wage, while a tax law allows businesses to deduct certain expenses from
their taxable income. If a business claims a deduction that lowers an employee's pay below the minimum wage, the doctrine of
harmonious construction would require that the two laws be read together to ensure that the minimum wage is still paid, while
allowing for legitimate business expenses to be deducted.
3. A federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, while a state law allows businesses to hire based on certain criteria. If
a business's hiring criteria appears to discriminate against a particular race, the doctrine of harmonious construction would
require that the two laws be read together in a way that allows for fair and non-discriminatory hiring practices.
4. A law requires that all food products be labeled with nutritional information, while a trademark law protects a company's
branding. If a company's logo or branding takes up too much space on the food product packaging, making it difficult to include
all required nutritional information, the doctrine of harmonious construction would require that the two laws be read together in
a way that allows for both the branding and the required nutritional information to be included.
Principles of this doctrine
Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2000)

1. The courts have a responsibility to avoid direct conflicts between provisions that may
appear to contradict each other. Instead, they should interpret these contradictory
provisions in a way that reconciles them.
2. When the court has exhausted all efforts to reconcile the differences, can the provision
of one section be used to defeat the provision contained in another.
3. In cases where it is impossible to fully reconcile the differences between contradictory
provisions, the courts must interpret them in a way that gives effect to both provisions
to the greatest extent possible. However, the courts must also be careful not to
interpret the provisions in a way that renders one of them useless or ineffective.
4. The goal of harmonization is not to destroy any statutory provision or render it
fruitless. Rather, the courts must strive to find an interpretation that allows both
provisions to coexist and have meaning.
This principle is derived from this Maxims
● "Generalia specialibus non derogant" is a Latin legal maxim that means "general things do not derogate from special
things." This means that a general rule or principle does not take precedence over a specific rule or exception.
○ For example, let's say there is a general rule that all vehicles must drive at a maximum speed of 60 mph on the highway. However, there is also a
specific rule that emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks, are exempt from this speed limit when responding to an emergency. In this
case, the specific rule takes precedence over the general rule, and emergency vehicles are allowed to exceed the speed limit.

● On the other hand, "Generalia specialibus derogant" is another Latin legal maxim that means "general things derogate from
special things." This means that a general rule or principle can override a specific rule or exception.
○ For example, let's say there is a specific law that allows people to park their cars on the side of the road for up to one hour. However, there is also a
general law that prohibits parking on the side of the road during rush hour. In this case, the general law takes precedence over the specific law, and
people are not allowed to park their cars on the side of the road during rush hour, even if they are within the one-hour limit.
Steps for employing the doctrine of harmonious construction:

1. To reduce inconsistency between conflicting provisions, it is important to give equal weight to

both.
2. When provisions in a law contradict each other, it's important to examine the entire law and
consider all of its parts as a whole.
a. Let's say a law states that smoking is banned in all public spaces, but another section of the law allows smoking in
designated areas. These two provisions are inconsistent with each other. To properly interpret the law, one would
need to read and understand both sections together, and determine how they are meant to be applied in practice.
3. Out of the two conflicting provisions choose wider and narrower scope of these two separately.
4. To simplify, remove the limited provisions and observe the outcome. If the outcome is logical
and allows both provisions to be fully effective on their own, then there's no need for further
investigation.
a. a law that prohibits smoking in public places but has an exception for designated smoking areas. If a new law is
proposed to ban smoking in all outdoor areas, including the designated smoking areas, we could apply the above
statement. We would first remove the limited provision (the exception for designated smoking areas) and consider
the consequence of banning smoking everywhere. If the outcome is reasonable and allows the original law and the
new proposal to work together without conflict, then there would be no need for further inquiry.
Steps for employing the doctrine of harmonious construction:

1. If a provision in one Act conflicts with the powers granted by another Act,
a non-obstante clause(allows the legislature to override or disregard a
provision of law that might otherwise limit its authority. ) must be utilized.
The court needs to determine how much authority the legislature
intended to give to one provision over the other.
a. For instance, suppose there is a conflict between two Acts: the Food Safety Act and the
Agricultural Products Act. The Food Safety Act includes a provision that requires all food
products to undergo a safety inspection before being sold, while the Agricultural Products
Act allows farmers to sell their products without any safety inspection. In this case, the
court would need to determine which Act has overriding authority and use a
non-obstante clause to resolve the conflict.
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law. The case dealt with a conflict between two provisions
of the Indian Constitution: Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b). Article 25(2)(b) provides that the state may make laws for social welfare and reform,
or for the opening of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. Article 26(b) provides that every religious denomination
has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

In this case, the government of Mysore had enacted a law that allowed the state to take over the management of certain Hindu temples. The
temple authorities challenged the law, arguing that it violated their right to manage their religious affairs under Article 26(b).

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, applied the rule of harmonious construction to resolve the conflict between Article 25(2)(b) and Article
26(b). The court held that the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion is subject to reasonable
restrictions imposed by the state for social welfare and reform or for opening up Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of
Hindus.

The court held that the state's power to take over the management of temples is a reasonable restriction on the right of religious
denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The court also held that the state's power to take over the management of
temples is for social welfare and reform, and that the law is not violative of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) of the
Constitution.