This rule of interpretation means that any section or part of statute should be read with reference to the entire act; that is the meaning should be construed in entirety, not singularly. If while constructing the meaning of a section, it conflicts with the meaning given in other, in all probability there is an error in interpretation. Hence, if two sections in the same statute seem to give different meanings or lead to opposite directions, the interpretation should be such as can accommodate both meanings.
Where in an enactment, there are two provisions which can not be reconciled with each other, they should be interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both. This is what known as the 'Rule of Harmonious Construction'.
It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head on clash between two sections of the same act and whenever it is possible to do so, to construct provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise [Raj Krishna v. Pinod Kanungo, AIR 1954 SC 202 at 203].
It is a principle of statutory interpretation used in the Indian Legal System. It holds that when two provisions of a legal text seem to conflict, they should be interpreted so that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant nor nullified.
No comments:
Post a Comment