Method of Interpretation

Harmonious Interpretation
Shakil Ahmed
Assistant Professor
Department of Land Management and Law, JnU
“The courts must uphold the will of Parliament and not try to usurp its powers,
but sometimes it necessary to try and understand what the words used by the
parliamentary draftsman mean.”

Method of Interpretation of Statutes

1. Literal or Grammatical Rule

2. The Golden Rule
3. The Mischief Rule
4. Harmonious Construction
5. Beneficial Construction
6. Purposive Construction
7. Generic Interpretation
Problem 1:

The state religion 2A. The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall
ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and
other religions.

Freedom of religion 41. (1) Subject to law, public order and morality – (a) every citizen
has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion

Q: Can state religion and freedom of religion coexist? If so, how do you interpret
them.
Problem 2:

Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the government to publish every
award of a Labour Tribunal within thirty days of its receipt and by sub – section (2) of section
17 the award on its publication becomes final. Section 18(1) of the Act provides that a
settlement between employer and workmen shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

In a case where a settlement was arrived at after the receipt of the award of a Labour Tribunal
by the Government but before its publication, the question was whether the Government was
still required u/s 17(1) to publish the award.
Fact:
 An order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen was made to the
Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal sent it awards to Government in September 1957.
 Under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the award has to be published by the
appropriate Government within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt.

 Before, however the Government could publish the award under section 17, the parties to the
dispute which had been referred for adjudication came to a settlement and on 01/10/1957, a
letter was written to Government signed jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees
intimating that the dispute which had been pending before court the Tribunal had been settled
and a request was made to Government not to publish the award.

 The Government however expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award, the
view taken by the Government being that Section 17 of the Act was mandatory and the
Government was bound to publish the award.
 Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution praying that the Government may be directed not to publish the award sent to it
by the Industrial Tribunal.

ISSUE: Whether section 17 was mandatory or directory or was it possible for the government
to stop the publication of award?

 Section 18 (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman shall
be binding on the parties to the agreement.

 Section 18 (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings… or an award

of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be
binding on the parties.
Problem 3:

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression.
Article 194(3) of the Constitution provides for the Parliamentary Privilege.

In this case, an editor of a newspaper published the word -for- word record of the proceedings of
the Parliament (Bihar Legislative Assembly) including those portions which were expunged from
the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary privilege.

Issues

 Whether the Constitution of India, under Article 194(3), empowers a State Legislative Assembly
to restrict any publication of a proceeding that has been witnessed by its members or to prohibit
the publication of the parts that has been directed to be expunged?

 Whether the said privilege under Article 194(3) have an upper hand over the Article 19(1)(a)
which grants a Fundamental Right of ‘free speech and expression' to every citizen of India?
Harmonious Rule of Interpretation
 Harmonious Rule of Interpretation
"No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding." – Plato

When there is a conflict between two or more Statues or two or more parts of a Statute then
the Rule of Harmonious Construction needs to be adopted. Every Statute has a purpose and
intent as per Law and should be read as a whole. While using the Harmonious Rule the
Interpretation should be consistent with all the provisions of the Statute.

The basis of Principle of Harmonious Construction probably is that the Legislature must not
have intended to contradict itself. The intention of Legislature is that every provision should
remain operative. But when two provisions are contradictory, it may not possible to
effectuate both of them and in result, one will be rendered futile 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.
 Harmonious Rule of Interpretation
The Five main Principles of this Rule are:

1) The Courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must
construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them. ["Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs Hindustan Bulk Carriers", (2003) 3 SCC 57, P. 74].
2) 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.
3) When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions,
the Courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as
much as possible. ["Sultana Begum Vs Premchand Jain", AIR 1997 SC 1006, Pages 1009,
1010].
4) Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or dead is not harmonious construction.
5) To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
 Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Applicability Of Harmonious Construction: The Courts have formulated some measures for
the improved applicability of the said Doctrine Of Harmonious Construction after reviewing
numerous case laws:

1) Giving maximum force to both clauses thus reducing their inconsistency and/or dispute.
2) Both clauses that are inherently contradictory or repugnant to one another must be read as a
whole, and the entire enactment must be considered.
3) Compare the broad and narrow provisions, and then try to analyze the broad law to see if there
are any other consequences. No further investigation is needed if the result is as fair as
harmonizing both clauses and giving them full force separately. One thing to keep in mind is
that the legislature, when enacting the provisions, was well aware of the situation that they were
attempting to address, and thus all provisions adopted must be given full effect on scope.
 Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Applicability Of Harmonious Construction: The Courts have formulated some measures

for the improved applicability of the said Doctrine Of Harmonious Construction after
reviewing numerous case laws:

1) A non-obstante clause must be used when one provision of an Act strips away powers
conferred by another Act.
2) It is critical that the Court determine the degree to which the legislature wanted to grant one
clause overriding authority over another. In [Eastbourne Corporation Vs Fortes Ltd.,
(1959) 2 All ER 102 CA], it was decided that if two opposing sections could not be
reconciled, the last section would take precedence. This isn't a universal law, though.
Problem Discussion
Problem 2:

Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the government to publish every
award of a Labour Tribunal within thirty days of its receipt and by sub – section (2) of section
17 the award on its publication becomes final. Section 18(1) of the Act provides that a
settlement between employer and workmen shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

In a case where a settlement was arrived at after the receipt of the award of a Labour Tribunal
by the Government but before its publication, the question was whether the Government was
still required u/s 17(1) to publish the award.
 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

• K.N. Wanchoo J. held that though section 17(1) is mandatory and the government is
bound to publish the award received by it from an Industrial Tribunal the situation
arising in a case like the present one is of an exceptional nature and requires
reconciliation between section 18(1) and section 18(3), and the only way to reconcile the
two provisions is to withhold the publication of the award as a binding settlement has
already come into force.
• The appeal was allowed and the government was directed not to publish the award, in
view of the binding settlement under 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

https://www.lawcolumn.in/sirsilk-ltd-v-governemt-of-andhra-pradesh-air-1964-sc-160/
Problem 3:
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression.
Article 194(3) of the Constitution provides for the Parliamentary Privilege.

In this case, an editor of a newspaper published the word -for- word record of the proceedings
of the Parliament (Bihar Legislative Assembly) including those portions which were expunged
from the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary privilege.

Issues
 Whether the Constitution of India, under Article 194(3), empowers a State Legislative
Assembly to restrict any publication of a proceeding that has been witnessed by its members
or to prohibit the publication of the parts that has been directed to be expunged?

 Whether the said privilege under Article 194(3) have an upper hand over the Article 19(1)(a)
which grants a Fundamental Right of ‘free speech and expression' to every citizen of India?
Decision Majority: CJ Sudhi Ranjan Das
• The court opined that there was no statute existent in the Legislature of Bihar under - Entry
39, List II, Seventh Schedule, of the Constitution of India, related to the powers, privileges
and immunities of the House. Hence, all the Houses of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar
reserves the said powers, privileges and immunities as that of House of Commons at the
onset of the Constitution of India.

It was noted by the court that the House of Commons imposed restrictions on publication
of its proceedings since 1641. A standing order in this regard was issued stating that no
member shall communicate in print any speech or proceedings that took place in the
House. The said Standing Order was not amended or repealed, hence it stands in force.

The court concluded that at the time of the onset of the Constitution of India i.e. 26th
January, 1950, the House of Commons reserved a right to impose the said restriction. As
per this observation, the court opined that the Legislative Assembly of Bihar also had the
same powers as that of the House of Commons as it had not enacted any statute in this
regard.
The state religion 2A. The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall
ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and
other religions.

Freedom of religion 41. (1) Subject to law, public order and morality – (a) every citizen
has the right to profess, practise or propagate any religion

Q: Can state religion and freedom of religion coexist? If so, how do you interpret
them.

HW
INTERPRETATION