The term “Harmonious Construction” refers to such construction by which – Harmony or oneness amongst various provisions is argued at.
The Latin maxim “Generalia Specialibus non-derogant” means that the courts prefer specific provisions to provisions of general applications whenever the provisions are the conflict. Another maxim “Generalia Specialia derogant” means special things detract from general things. Only court of record can interpret the “Doctrine of Harmonious Construction”.
Whenever the words of statutory provision bear more than one meaning and there is a doubt as to which meaning should prevail, then such meaning should be adopted by which the words best harmonise with the subject and the subject of enactments.
In other words, Whenever there’s a case of conflict between two or more statutes or between two or more parts or provisions of a statute, then the statute must be interpreted upon harmonious construction. It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper harmonization is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat the purpose of another.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is essentially a principle utilized in the Indian system. It holds when two provisions of a legal text are in conflict. When there’s a conflict between two or more statutes, the rule of Harmonious Construction has to be applied.
Article 246 is the fountain of legislative powers in India. It provides that there are 3 lists under Seventh Schedule empowering Parliament and State Legislature to make laws.
Three lists:-
1. UNION LIST – Parliament [article 246(1)]
2. CONCURRENT LIST – Parliament [article 246(2)]
3. STATE LIST – State Legislature [article 246(3)]
An attribute of plenary power of Legislature is that the most liberal and widest possible meaning should be given to various entries in the lists. But it could not have been the intention of Constitution makers entry nugatory. It is the duty of the Courts, however, difficult it may be, to ascertain what matters fall within the jurisdiction of each legislature and to define in the particular case before them the limits of their respective powers. So far as possible the entries should be harmoniously construed to give meaning to each of them.
Where all alternatives construction are possible that construction should be accepted by which consistency is achieved and the construction leading to inconsistency be rejected. It is to bring harmony/ oneness. One good example can be the – Federal Structure of the Indian Constitution.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Gujarat University vs Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar
Facts: Shrikant, the second respondent, completed his secondary school examination in Marathi medium in March,1961. Shrikant applied in Arts classes, with medium English, of St. Xavier’s College, affiliated with Gujarat University. He successfully completed the course in English medium and further applied for admission to Intermediate Arts classes in the medium English, he started preparing for university’s intermediate arts examination. He was then informed by the principal that according to the requirements of Gujarat University Act, 1949 and statutes 207, 208 and 209 adopted by the Senate of University, as amended in 1961, he cannot be permitted admission without the permission from university. Shrikant’s father, the first respondent, sought permission from the vice- chancellor but was refused the same, resulting which he filed a writ of Mandamus in Gujarat High Court, requesting directions for university to treat sections 4(27), 18(i) (xiv) and 38 A as void and to treat any letters or circulars by the vice-chancellor in relation to medium as void in view of Entry 66 of List I of the constitution. The state and university filed different appeals to the Supreme Court contending on behalf of the university that Section 4 conferred the power to impose Gujarati and Hindi as the medium of education and examination and the sections in the question are valid.
Issue: Whether the university, under the Gujarat University Act, 1949, was permitted to impose Gujarati and Hindi, or both, as the only medium of imparting education and taking examinations in affiliated colleges?
In view of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, whether the legislation authorizing the University to impose such media was constitutionally valid?
Judgment: According to the court, the state did not have the power to make rules about higher education as the union has that power under Entry 66 of List 1, while the Entry 11 of List II gave state the power to make laws about the secondary education, the laws made by union will prevail in higher education system. The Gujarat University Act, 1949, neither as originally enacted nor as amended by Act 4 of 1961, Clause (27) of Section 4 of the Act, which alone expressly dealt with the subject of the medium of instruction, when properly construed, made it clear that the University was not empowered to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the only language used for instruction and examination, and since no power was granted to the University the Senate could not exercise such a power.
The court further stated that Item 66 of List I cannot be interpreted narrowly and that the authority it bestows extends to all ancillary or subsidiary matters that can be fairly and reasonably understood by it, such as inequalities brought on by the adoption of a regional medium of instruction that causes a decline in standards in higher education.
Therefore, Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously constructed, and in cases where they conflict, the power granted to the Parliament by Item 66 must take precedence over the power granted to State Legislatures by Item 11.
PRESENT QUESTION:
Q. 4/2020. Relying on the ratio of Gujarat University case (supra), it is opined that a court is vested with the jurisdiction to decide the issue in hand. It should be held that The West Bengal Universities Act, 1999′ is constitutionally invalid. The State of West Bengal lacks legislative competence to prescribe an exclusive medium of instruction and examination (Bengali) at all levels of University Education by way of the said enactment under Ent List III of VII Schedule as the exercise of such power is subject power of Parliament under Entry 66 List 1 of VII Schedule.
