Page |1

Subject – Interpretation of Statues

TOPIC – Harmonious Construction (with special

reference- State of Bombv/s F.N. Bansala)

Supervised By:
Nupur Raj.

NAME: Ahmed Hasan Mosaib

ROLL NO.: (Admit card No.) - 16
(Class Roll. No.) – 102/LLBG/15023
COURSE: B.A.LL.B
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ANNEXURE - II

With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my sincerest thanks to,

Nupur Raj. Indian Institute of Legal Studies, for his/her invaluable guidance, sound advice

and affectionate attitude during the course of my studies.

I have no hesitation in saying that he/she molded raw clay into whatever I am through his/her

incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout my academic pursuit. It is due to his/her

patient guidance that I have been able to complete the task.

I would also thank the Indian institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of information

therein. I also express my regards to the Library staff for cooperating and making available

the books for this project research paper.

Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me throughout the

project work.

Date: _____________________

AHMED HASAN MOSAIB

 Page |3

ANNEXURE - III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__________________________________________________________
Acknowledgement……………………………………………….…………….……………………………………..………………2
Research Methodology…………………………………………………………….………………………………..………………4
A. Aims and Objectives…………………………………………….………………………………..…………………………4
B. Statement of Problem……………………………………………….……………………………….……………………4
C. Research Questions……………………………………………………….…………….……………..………………………
D. Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
E. Method of Research…………………….……………………………….……………….………….…………………5
F. Mode of Citation…………………………………………………………………………………….……………………5

Table of Cases…………………………………………………………………………………………………….….………………6
Chapter – I: Introduction………………………………..……………………………………..…………….…………………7
Chapter II: Harmonious Construction……………………………………………………………………………..8
A. Principal…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Chapter III: Project Topic
A. Sub Categorization
B. Sub Categorization
C. Sub Categorization
Chapter IV: Case Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
A. Provisions of Law
B. Facts of the case
C. Issues Involved
D. Judgments referred by the parties
E. Judgments referred by the Court
F. Maxims Used
G. Judgment
H. Own Observation
I. Conclusion
Chapter V: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…………………………............14
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15

ANNEXURE - IV

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
___________________________________________________________
 Page |4

A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims and objectives of this project are to understand the concepts of Harmonious
construction, the purpose of having provisions which gives inclusive concept of law of
interpretation of statues is a byproduct of intensive form of government comment. One of the
aims of the project is to have a comparative study on the topic; Harmonious construction with
respect of law of interpretation is a byproduct of intensive form of government comment in
India.

B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite the laws and Acts, the current systems do not give an equal chance to access and
flourish. Though we have various Laws and Statutes yet essential things are missed out and
very few literates know the proper meaning and nature of law of interpretation of statues is a
byproduct of intensive form of government comment. As such many of us are still in dark as
to what includes the term Assets on which interpretation of statues is a byproduct of intensive
form of government comment is to be computed and how to compute the same.

C. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

This research work is an attempt to distill lessons from the concept of law of interpretation of
statue is a byproduct of intensive form of government comment. It is an attempt to know the
concept of various terminologies within the concept of law of interpretation of statues is a
byproduct of intensive form of government comment and how they are very much needed in
our present soceity.

D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the statement of problem and research hypothesis aforementioned, the following
research questions have been formulated:

E. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
 Page |5

“Methodology” implies more than simply the methods the researcher used to collect data. It
is often necessary to include a consideration of the concepts and theories which underlie the
methods. The methodology opted for the study on the topic is doctrinal in nature. Empirical
research in law field indicates arranging, ordering and analysis of the legal structure, legal
frame work and case laws by extensive surveying of legal literature but with field work.

F. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The research work discusses the key points that the Learned Court observed as well as what
is deduced after going through the research work. Interpretation of statues topic being very
vast like ocean, the work is limited to the project topic.

G. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The researcher while writing this project has taken recourse to various primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources would include various laws, books and articles. Secondary sources
would include reports and websites.

H. MODE OF CITATION

A uniform Blue Book Mode of citation has been adopted throughout the project.

TABLE OF CASES
 Page |6

 CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers

 Raj Krishna vs Binod

 Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain,

 The State of Bombay And Another Vs. F.N. Balsara

CHAPTER – I: INTRODUCTION

“No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding.

 Page |7

-Plato

Every individual living in a society understands the value of law. Law may be understood as
a tool to keep the society peaceful and problem free and to prevent conflicts between people
by regulating their behavior. The laws enacted to regulate the society are drafted by legal
experts and it can very well be anticipated that many of the laws enacted will not be specific
and will contain ambiguous words and expressions. Quite often we find that the courts and
lawyers are busy in unfolding the meaning of such words and expressions and in resolving
inconsistencies. All this has led to the formulation of certain rules of interpretation of statutes.
We are all aware that the government has three wings, namely, the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary. The role of interpretation of statutes comes into play and is of utmost
importance for the judiciary to render justice correctly by interpreting the statutes in the way
the situation demands.

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. The
object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, "by interpretation or
construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed."

Interpretation is the method by which true sense or the meaning of the word is understood.
The meaning of an ordinary meaning of an English word is not a question of law. According
to Gray, the process by which a judge constructs from the words of a statute book, a meaning
which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which, he proposes to attribute to it is
interpretation. Salmond describes interpretation as the process which the courts seek to
ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it
is expressed.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

 Page |8

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. The rule follows a very simple
premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole.
The interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the case
in which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision
regarding the provision shall prevail. .

The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of any statute. An
interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the Courts
and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or
parts of the statute should be adopted. The Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, in the
words of the Apex Court, between the different parts of an enactment and conflict between
the various provisions should be sought to be harmonized. The normal presumption should be
consistency and it should not be assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature
is sought to be taken away by the other. The rule of harmonious construction has been tersely
explained by the Supreme Court thus, “When there are, in an enactment two provisions which
cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted, that if possible, effect
should be given to both”. A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead
letter should be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.

According to this rule, a statute should be read as a whole and one provision of the Act
should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a
consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such an interpretation is beneficial in avoiding any
inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between a section and other parts of
the statute.

The Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

1) The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them1.

1
CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, p. 74
 Page |9

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
differences2.

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.3

4) Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a
useless number or dead is not harmonious construction4.

5) To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.5

A familiar approach in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting
provisions is more general and which is more specific and to construe the more general one
so as to exclude the more specific.
The question as to the relative nature of the provisions, general or special, has to be
determined with reference to the area and extent of their application either generally or
specially in particular situations. This principle is expressed in the maxims Generalia
specialibus non derogate, and Generalia specialibus derogant. The former means that general
things do not derogate from special things and the latter means that special things derogate
from general things. The rule of harmonious construction can also be used for resolving a
Further this principle is also used to resolve a conflict between two different Acts sanding the
making of statutory rule sand statutory orders. But in case there are two remedies for a
situation, one general and one specific, and both are inconsistent with each other, they
continue to hold good for the concerned person to choose from, until he elects one of them.

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 election but section 123(8) says that a Government Servant cannot assist any
candidate in 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.

2
Ibid.
3
Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain,
AIR 1997 SC 1006, pp. 1009, 1010.
4
CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers,
(2003) 3 SCC 57, p. 74.
5
Ibid.
 P a g e | 10

Case study

The State of Bombay And Another

Vs.

F.N. Balsara

Citations: 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682

Bench: Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan,
Bose, Vivian

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENT: F.N. BALSARA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/05/1951

ACT:

Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949)—Constitutional validity --Applicability of Act to

foreign liquors—To medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol--Validity of ss.
2(24) (a), 12, 13, 23, 24, 39, 40(1) (b), 46, 52, 53, 139 (c)--Law of Province prohibiting
possession and sale of foreign liquor within Province--Whether encroaches on power of
Dominion to make laws as to "import and export"—Doctrine of original package
Applicability to India--Construction of Lists--Restriction on fundamental right "to acquire,
hold and dispose of property" and to "equal protection of the laws" --Government of India
Act,1935, s. 297 (4), Seventh Sched., List I entry 19 --List II entry 31--Constitution of India,
Arts. 14, 19(1), 19 (2).

Fact of the Case:

Under entry 31 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, the
Provincial Legislatures had the power to make laws in respect of "intoxicating liquors, that
is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating
 P a g e | 11

liquors" and under entry 19 of List I, the Dominion Legislature had the power to make laws
with respect to "import and export across customs frontiers". The constitutional validity of
the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, in so far as it restricted the possession and sale of
foreign liquors was impugned on the ground that it was an encroachment on the field
assigned to the Dominion Legislature under entry 19 of List I: Held, (i) that the words
"possession and sale" occurring in entry 31 of List II must be read without any qualification,
and the word "import" in entry 19 of List 1 standing by itself will not include either sale or
possession of the article imported into the country. There was thus no conflict between
entry 31 of List i1 and entry 19 of List I and the Bombay Prohibition Act, in so far as it
purported to restrict the possession and sale of foreign liquors, did not encroach upon the
field of the Dominion Legislature; (ii)even assuming that the prohibition of purchase, use,
683 possession, transport and sale of liquor will affect its import, the Bombay Prohibition
Act was in pith and substance an Act falling within entry 31 of List II and the fact that the
law incidentally encroached upon the powers of the Dominion Legislature under entry 19
of List I would not affect its validity. The American doctrine of "original package" which
laid down that importation was not over so long as the goods were still in the original
package, has no application in India having regard to the scheme of legislation that has been
outlined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and in the present Constitution in which the
various entries in the Legislative Lists have been expressed in clear and precise language.

The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, does not in any way contravene the provisions of s.
297(1) (a) of the Government of India Act. 1935, inasmuch as it is not a law made by virtue
of the entry relating to "trade and commerce within the Province" (entry 2 of List II) or the
entry relating to "the production, supply and distribution of commodities" (entry 29 of List
If). The word "liquor" as understood India at the time of the Government of India Act,
1935, covered not only those alcoholic liquids which are generally used as beverages and
produce intoxication, but also all liquids containing alcohol; the definition of" liquor"
contained in s. 2 (24)of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, is not therefore ultravires.

Rule 67 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules which authorizes the granting of a permit to
"any foreigner on a tour of India who enters the State of Bombay and desires to possess,
use and consume foreign liquor" is not void on the ground of discrimination, firstly because,
though it provides for the case of a foreign.
 P a g e | 12

Issue:

1. Is this law violate the fundamental right under article 19(1)(g) ?

The Legislature may have thought it necessary to bring about prohibition in the State,
but certainly these extraordinary powers cannot be justified, No one has suggested
that intemperance in the State of Bombay has assumed such proportions that the State
Legislature is compelled in the interest of the general public to violate the
fundamental rights secured to each citizen. Clause (2) of Section 136(2) is also void
as offending against Article 19(1)(g). Here again, the restrictions are not in the interest
of the general public. Clause (f) is void as being too wide and enabling the
Government to prohibit or restrict the possession or use of any article. This clearly
offends against Article 19(1)(f). How wide were the powers which the Legislature
intended to confer upon the executive may be gathered from the fact that under
Section 136(11) no order made under that section could be called in question in any
Court.

2. The next question that we have to consider is whether, assuming we are right in
holding that certain provisions of the law are bad?

those provisions can be severed from the rest of the statute, or whether the statute as a
whole is bad. The test of saverability has often been laid down by the Privy Council. It was
last laid down in Attorney-General for Alberta v. Attorney-General for Canada, (1947) A. C.
503 : (63 T. L. R. 479) and this is how Viscount Simon on behalf of the Board defines the test
(p. 518) :

"The real question is whether what remains is so inextricably bound up with the part
declared invalid that what remains cannot independently survive, or, as it has sometimes
been pat, whether on a fair review of the whole matter it can be assumed that the
legislature would have enacted what survives without enacting the part that is ultra vires at
all."

3. Whether doctrine of repugnancy applies and voids the state legislation?

In this case court decides that doctrine of repugnancy will not apply. Because if all the time
court will apply doctrine of repugnancy then it became arbitrary of central legislature. In this
 P a g e | 13

case court observe that the need of harmonious construction and court apply the doctrine of
harmonious construction in this case.

The next ground on which certain provisions of the Act are challenged is that they constitute
delegation of legislation. Under Section 62 power is given to Government to grant licences in
cases other than those specifically provided under any of the provisions of the Act. Under
Section 53, Government is inter alia empowered to vary or substitute any of the conditions
of the licence laid down in the Act, and under Section 139(c) power is given to Government
to exempt any person or institution or any class of persons or institutions from the
observance of all or any of the provisions of the Act or any rule or regulation or order made
there under. The policy of legislation has been clearly laid down by the Legislature in the Act
itself. As pointed out by us before, the Legislature intended to grant permits ordinarily only
on grounds of health and certain exceptions were made in the case of certain classes. It is
always open to the Legislature to leave it to the Government to work out the policy in
details.

Judgment:

I hold that the rest of the provisions of the Act are valid, and I also hold that my decision
declaring some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid does not affect the validity of the Act
as it remains. Appeal No. 182, pre- ferred by the State of Bombay, is therefore substantially
allowed and Appeal No. 183 preferred by the petitioner is dismissed.

On the question of costs, I am disposed to make the same order as the High Court has made,
not only because some of the provisions of the Act are still found to be invalid, but also
because the present case appears to have been instituted to test the validity of a controversial
measure and to secure a final decision on it to set at rest the doubts and uncertainties which
may have clouded the minds of a section of the public as to how far the provisions of the Act
conform to law and to the Chapter on Fundamental Rights in the present Constitution.

PATANJALI SASTRI J.-I agree and have nothing more to add.

MUKHERJEA J.--I have read the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Fazl Ali and I
am in entire agreement with his conclusions and reasons. There is nothing further which I can
usefully add.

S.R. DAS J.--I agree and I have nothing further to add. VlVlAN BOSE J.--I also agree.

Appeal No. 182 allowed.

 P a g e | 14

Appeal No. 183 dismissed.

Conclusion:

Statutes are drafted by the legislature and there is every possibility of situations of ambiguity,
conflicts, anomalies, absurdities, hardships, repugnancy, redundancy etc. In such situations,
the rules of interpretation of statutes come into play and the provisions are construed so as to
give maximum effect to them and to render justice to the situation at hand. The principle of
harmonious construction plays a very important role in interpreting statutes and is used in
abundance of cases. It helps in simplifying complicated issues and makes delivering
judgments much easier. Therefore, like the many rules of interpretation of statutes, the
importance of the rule of harmonious construction is also understood and felt by the judiciary.
It was rightly said by George Washington, ‘The administration of justice is the firmest pillar
of the government.’ Thus, in keeping with this thought, the judiciary should interpret the
statutes properly and intelligently apply the rules for interpretation of statues to render quick
justice to the citizens of the country.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES
I. STATUTES:
 The Constitution of India, 1950
 Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949
 Government of India Act,1935
 P a g e | 15

SECONDARY SOURCES
I. BOOKS:
 Interpretation of statue.
-Dr.Rega Suriya Rao
Asia Law House, Hyderabad
II. WEBSITES

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/334293/

 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/harmonious-and-beneficial-
construction-1941-1.html

 http://www.academia.edu/8741055/harmonious_construction

 http://hanumant.com/IOS-Unit8-Constitution.html