Each court is relegated an duty of statutory interpretation and it ought to be performed with most extreme consideration and caution. The court can generally decipher legislation in its own particular manner and the responsibility to comprehend the goal of the assembly while applying the doctrine additionally stands exclusively with the court. The interpretation of various statutes varies in nature and it is imperative that the interpretation turns out in an unmistakable and unambiguous manner. Yet, in the event that both the provisions are hazy, there will be no interpretation. They will only decipher when the words are clear and on account of any vagueness the court will investigate authorizing provisions of the statute. The court here will only apply the Literal interpretation and apply the well known significance. As to law, each word has an importance and the interpretation will turn into the scope and beyond the span of objectives and reasons for which the statute was ordered in the governing body. Subsequently, the court ought to comprehend the significance of the ‘Doctrine of Harmonious Construction’ and interpretation of statutes in general with its always expanding scope in the current occasions.
This standard is utilized to stay away from any inconsistency and repugnancy inside a section or between a section and different pieces of a statute. The standard follows an exceptionally basic reason that each statute has a reason and plan according to law, and ought to be perused overall. The interpretation which is consistent with every one of the provisions and makes the authorization consistent will win. The doctrine observes a settled standard that an interpretation that outcomes in bad form, difficulty, inconvenience, and abnormality ought to be stayed away from. The interpretation with the nearest conformity to equity should be picked.
The Supreme Court set down 5 primary standards of the ‘Doctrine of Harmonious Construction’-
- The courts should stay away from a ‘head of clash’ of contradictory provisions and they should construe the contradictory provisions to harmonize them.
- When it isn’t possible to totally reconcile the distinctions in contradictory provisions, the court should decipher them in such a manner to offer effect to the two provisions as much as possible.vii
- Courts should remember that the interpretation which reduces one provision to a pointless standing is against the essence of ‘Harmonious Construction’.
- To harmonize the provisions isn’t to deliver them pointless or annihilate any statutory provision.
- The provision of one section can’t be utilized to deliver pointless the other provision, except if the court, in spite of every one of its endeavors, figures out how to reconcile the distinctions.
The methodology that is for the most part utilized by the courts is to discover which provision is more general in nature in order to construe the more general provision and bar the specific one. The sayings Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant, and Generalia Specialibus Derogant gets the essence of the doctrine. The previous implies that general things don’t discredit from exceptional things, and the latter implies that unique things disparage from general things.
Further, this guideline is additionally used to resolve conflicts between two separate acts and in the creation of statutory orders and rules. But on the off chance that a person has two cures, one being general and the other being specific, they continue to hold good for the concerned person until he elects one of them.
