The rule of harmonious construction provides that when two or more statutes or parts of a statute conflict, they should be interpreted in a way that harmonizes them and gives effect to both. The interpretation that avoids inconsistencies or repugnancy between provisions and makes the statute consistent as a whole should be adopted. If provisions cannot be completely reconciled, they must be interpreted to give effect to both as much as possible without reducing any provision to useless or dead letter. The rule aims to avoid head-on clashes and inconsistencies between different parts of a statute.

2. Ruleof Harmonious Construction
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.

3. The interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the
statute should be adopted. In case where it is 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 consistent , should be the aim of
the Courts and also interpretation which avoids
inconsistency or repugnancy between the various
sections or parts of the statute should be adopted.

4. 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.

5. The rule of harmonious construction has been
tersely(Briefly) explained by the Supreme Court
thus, “Where in an enactment two provisions are
there that cannot be reconciled with each other,
they should be so interpreted, that 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.

6. It is a settled rule that an interpretation which
results in hardship, injustice, inconvenience or
anomaly should be avoided and that which
supports the sense of justice should be adopted.
The Court leans in favour of an interpretation
which conforms to justice and fair play and
prevents injustice (Union of India vs. B.S.
Aggarwal)(AIR 1998 S.C. 1537).

8. 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
them.

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 differences.
3.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.
4.Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces
one provision to a useless number or dead is not a
harmonious construction.
5.To harmonize does not intend to destroy any statutory
provision or to render it fruitless.

10. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
In this case the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious
construction in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and
26(b) of the Constitution of India and it was held that the right of
every religious denomination or any section, thereof to manage its
own affairs in matters of religion [Article 26(b)] is subject to a law
made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character
to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].

11. Two provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, which were in apparent
conflict, were brought forth in this case. Section 33 (2) says that a Government
Servant can nominate or second a candidate 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 in any other manner.

12. 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
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.