On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 650, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 650, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.
To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/09/harmonious-construction-justice-gavai-.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
Welcome to Legal Talks by Desi Kanoon.
I am Suyash and I am excited to have started this show.
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 650, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.
In short, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction means that when there are two conflicting and irreconcilable provisions in a law, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both.
The facts of the case are not relevant for our discussion as we would be simply discussing the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. Thus, let us understand the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court.
Firstly, the Court noted that if there are legal provisions that are capable of being interpreted in a manner that that may lead to inconsistencies or conflicts, then aid of principles of interpretation may be taken.
Secondly, the Court cited the case of Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras, (1985) 3 SCC 103, wherein it was held that “no canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole” and “the only recognised exception to this well-laid principle is that it cannot be called in aid to alter the meaning of what is of itself clear and explicit.”
Thirdly, the Court cited the case of Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, wherein it was held that “when the language is clear and explicit and the words used are plain and unambiguous, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses of the Act or Rules as the case may be, so far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.”
Fourthly, the Court cited the case of Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373, wherein five important principles relating to harmonious construction were laid down.
1. It is the duty of the courts to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them.
2. The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
3. When there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both.
4. An interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a “dead letter” or “useless lumber” is not harmonious construction.
5. To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose.
Fifthly, the Court cited the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, wherein it was observed that “the courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.”
Sixthly, the Court explained that when there is a choice between two possible interpretations, then the interpretation or construction that furthers the object of the statute or the law should be favoured.
Seventhly, according to the Court, intention of the legislature must be gathered while construing a legal provision as such manner of construction would help in “avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute.”
Eighthly, the Court noted that “a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” is not a harmonised construction.”
Ninthly, the Court further observed that “if more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability, and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile.”
And lastly, it was observed that “it is the court's duty to make what it can of the statute, knowing that the statutes are meant to be operative and not inept and that nothing short of impossibility should allow a court to declare a statute unworkable.”
The Latin Maxims that explain this Doctrine are ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat’ and ‘exposition ex visceribus actus’. Thus, I hope that the meaning of Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is clear by now.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like and subscribe us.
And if you have any comments, please make them in the comments section.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.