Principle of Harmonious Construction


The principle of harmonious interpretation is similar to the idea of broad or purposive approach. The key to this method of constitutional interpretation is that provisions of the Constitution should be harmoniously interpreted. As per Kelly:

“Constitutional provisions should not be construed in isolation from all other parts of the Constitution, but should be construed as to harmonize with those other parts.” A provision of the constitution must be construed and considered as part of the Constitution and it should be given a meaning and an application which does not lead to conflict with other Articles and which confirms with the Constitution’s general scheme. When there are two provisions in a statute, which is in apparent conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and that construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.

This principle is illustrated in the case of Raj Krishna vs Binod AIR 1954. In this case, two provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, which were in apparent conflict, were brought forth. Section 33 (2) says that a Government Servant can nominate or second a person in the election but section 123(8) says that a Government Servant cannot assist any candidate in the election except by casting his vote. The Supreme court observed that both these provisions should be harmoniously interpreted and held that a Government Servant was entitled to nominate or second a candidate seeking election in State Legislative assembly. This harmony can only be achieved if Section 123(8) is interpreted as giving the govt. servant the right to vote as well as to nominate or second a candidate and forbidding him to assist the candidate it any other manner.

Upon looking at various cases, the following important aspects of this the principle is evident -
The courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.

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 a way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.

Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or a dead lumbar is not harmonious construction. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose.

Comments

Post a Comment

If you have any doubt just let me know

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Coercion Section 15  defines Coercion as follows : Coercion is committing or threatening to commit an act that is prohibited by IPC, or any unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with an intention of causing any person into entering a contract. It is immaterial whether IPC is in operation at a place where such act took place. Illustrations A threatens B at gun point to sell his land to A. A while in an English ship on high seas enter into a contract with B by intimidating B that is unlawful in India. Later on A sues B of breach of contract in Calcutta. This is coercion. Chikham Amiraju vs Chikham Seshamma 1912  - Husband threatened to suicide unless wife gave property to his brother. This was held coercion. Askari Mirza vs Bibi Jai Kishori 1912  -  Threatening a criminal prosecution is not coercion per se. It could be coercion if the threat is to file false charges. Astley vs Reynolds 1731  - Plaintiff had pledged his place
Read more!

Residuary Powers (Art. 248)

Article 248: "Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those lists" (It is to be noted that before independence, Governor-General, and not the federal legislature, which had such powers). Entry 97 of List I also lays down that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Article 248 and Entry 97, List I, assign residuary powers of legislation exclusively to the Union Parliament. If no entry in any of the three lists covers a piece of legislation, it must be regarded as a matter not enumerated in any of the three lists and belonging exclusively to Parliament under Entry 97, List I. By virtue of Art. 248, Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or List III, and for this purpose, and to avoid any
Read more!

आत्मनिर्भर भारत - Self Reliant India

Image
Atmanirbharta or self-reliance is the new catchphrase for the Indian economy. It sounds new but is actually the earliest initiative of economic policymakers after this country attained independence. It flowed from the motto of swadeshi and boycott of colonial foreign goods that was an integral part of the freedom movement. The general public thus had no problem in accepting the ideas of self- reliance and import substitution advocated by Jawaharlal Nehru and his advisors as a critical element of economic policy. It gelled well with the theme of independence, not just from the colonial masters, but from imperialistic powers everywhere. In practice, of course, import substitution became one more element of red tape under the licence raj system that evolved under Nehru and his successors. It is with a sense of trepidation that one views the latest clarion call to achieve the goal of atmanirbharta. The last stimulus package was even described as the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan. These
Read more!

amazon