When there are two provisions in a statute, that seem to be at odds with each other, they are to be interpreted in a manner that allows effect to be given to both. Any construction that renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except as a last resort.
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 harmonise both the provisions, the court's decision shall prevail.
In Venkatraman Devaru v. State of Mysore case, the SC applied this rule in resolving a conflict between Article 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution and it was held that the right of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matter 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)].
No comments:
Post a Comment