About Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

• It is an essential rule for interpreting statutes. It states that when there’s a conflict between two or more statutes or between different parts or provisions of a statute, we should interpret them in a way that harmonises them.
• It means that when there are inconsistencies, we should try to reconcile the conflicting parts so that one part doesn’t negate the purpose of another.
• It is rooted in the fundamental legal principle that every statute is created with a specific purpose and intent. Therefore, it should be understood as a whole.
• But when two provisions are contradictory, it may not be possible to effectuate both of them, and as a result, one will be rendered futile as against the settled basic principle of ‘ut res magis valeat qauam pereat’ (that a thing is better understood so that it may have an effect than that it should be made void).
• Therefore, the court should interpret the laws in a way that removes the inconsistency and allows both provisions to remain in force, working together harmoniously.
• The goal is to give effect to all the provisions. To avoid conflicts, the interpretation of the statute should be consistent with all its parts.
• If it’s impossible to harmoniously interpret or reconcile the different parts or provisions, then it’s the responsibility of the judiciary to make the final decision.
• In the landmark case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2000), the Supreme Court established five fundamental principles governing the rule of harmonious construction:
  • Courts should make every effort to avoid conflicts between seemingly conflicting provisions and should attempt to interpret these provisions in a way that harmonises them.
  • A provision in one section of the law should not be used to nullify a provision found in another section unless the court is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences despite diligent effort.
  • In cases where it’s impossible to completely reconcile inconsistencies between provisions, the courts must interpret them in a manner that gives effect to both provisions to the greatest extent possible.
  • Courts must consider that an interpretation rendering one provision redundant or useless goes against the essence of harmonious construction and should be avoided.
  • Harmonizing two contradictory provisions means preserving and not destroying any statutory provision or rendering it ineffective.