_ uve untty De obiter, ‘uO 4 desirable change; and (5) activity serves as a on Court which otherwise might Pted to be so fascile in overruling, Our view, these objections are not ountable. If a court can overrule ier decision, there cannot be any , when the court can do so, there be any valid reason why it should trict its ruling to the future and the past. Even if the party filing eal may not be benefited by it, in appeals which he/she may file ie change in the law he/she will e benefit. The decision cannot be ‘or what the court in effect does clare the law but on the basis of "doctrine restricts its scope. Sta- | law does not mean that injustice perpetuated.” inuation of the Doctrine noted here that even though the delivered in the Golak Nath case”® s overruled in the Kesavananda e”’ (1973), the doctrine of prospec- ling was upheld and followed in sequent judgements. d 1, the Supreme Court has als 1e application of the doctrine te rising under the ordinary stat: ment in Mandal case” (199 the operation for five years fro} the judgment is an instance of, nsion to the principle of prospec ing. akar case” (1993), the Suprem hat benefit of the decisions would y to the parties to the cases pend- ¢ authorities from the date of the Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973). *y vs. Union of India (1992). by the date of that judgment, ~ ““Y ken, DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION [Bl | Meaning of the Doctrine When different provisions of the are found to be in conflict with the courts should interpret the: ously so as to avoid the conflict tions between them. This is k doctrine of harmonious constru doctrine is also called as the rule ance of conflict. While explaining the doctrine of harmoni. ous construction, Justice Venkatraama Aiyar observed”: “In case of two irreconcilable provisions, they should be so interpreted that effect can be given to both and none of the two is rendered nugatory’. Similarly, Justice Mukherjea said, "1g certain provisions in the constitution appear to be in conflict with each other, these provi- sions should be interpreted so as to effect a reconciliation between them so that, if pos- sible, effect could be given to all”, onstitution each other, m harmoni, tual implica. nown as the ion. This of avoid.a 4 n fundamental rights and legisla: petwee! gi vileges; ve pri’ tive Pe fundamental rights and amend- petween * ment pro ff feaween fundamental rights and other i S arts of the constitution; and Ponween different entries of the legislative 6. gts in the seventh schedule. she Supreme Court, on the application of Vjctrine of harmonious construction to the oe amental rights and directive principles of ae policy 80 as to give effect to both as much jspossible, made the following observation": yedure; “although in earlier decision the court paid scant regard to the directives on the ground that the courts had little to do with them since they were not justi- ciable or enforceable like the fundamen- tal rights, the duty of court in relation to the directives came to be emphasized in the later decision which reached its culmination in the Kesavananda Bharati case’ (1973) laying down certain broad Propositions. Law of these is that there isno disharmony between the ¥ a __Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation q 669 the different lists or in the same list may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the duty of this Court to reconcile the entries and bring about harmony between them. In this way it may, in most cases, be found possible to arrive at 4 reasonable and practical construction of the language of the sections, so as to reconcile the respective powers they con- tain and to give effect to all of them. It is only when such a reconciliation proves impossible, then, and only then, should the overriding power of the Union legis- lature, the non-obstante clause, operate and the Union power prevail.” Important Cases The important cases relating to the doctrine of harmonious construction and their judge- ments are given in Table 91.6. DOCTRINE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION aning of the Doctrine g to the doctrine of liberal interpre- he constitution must be interpreted oad and liberal manner and not in a pedantic sense. In other words, a 1 liberal spirit should inspire the eters of the constitution. ‘ doctsine of liberal interpretation titution should be that tho, conse N eee lot as a mere Mare to be made. by which ¢ that the const qt hen nic thing and I proadly and liberally. ay 5 doctrine explaining sg See ‘made the fol- i is livis tution is @ ns ite, it must be words