Facts in the Case
- There exists an inconsistency or conflict between a provision of substantive law and a provision of procedural law.
- The question arises as to which provision should prevail.
- How should such a conflict be resolved to ensure proper legal application?
Issues in the Case
- When a substantive law provision conflicts with a procedural law provision, which law takes precedence?
- What is the legal approach to harmoniously interpret conflicting provisions?
- How to maintain the rule of law and fairness while resolving such conflicts?
Principles Applied
1. Distinction between Substantive and Procedural Law
- Substantive law defines rights and duties, including offenses, liabilities, and defenses.
- Procedural law prescribes the methods and procedures to enforce substantive rights.
- Both are essential parts of the legal system, but their roles differ.
2. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
- Courts aim to interpret conflicting provisions harmoniously, giving effect to both if possible.
- Neither substantive nor procedural law should be rendered ineffective.
- If a conflict is irreconcilable, the rule of precedence applies.
3. Rule of Precedence
- Generally, substantive law prevails over procedural law when there is a direct conflict.
- Procedural law is meant to facilitate enforcement, not to alter substantive rights.
- However, if procedural law explicitly overrides substantive provisions, it may prevail only within its scope.
4. Judicial Precedents
M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
- The Supreme Court emphasized harmonious construction of conflicting laws.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770
- Court held that procedural provisions cannot defeat substantive rights.
Judgment / Legal Position
- When there is a conflict between substantive and procedural provisions, the courts first try harmonious interpretation.
- If conflict remains irreconcilable, the substantive provision prevails.
- Procedural provisions cannot be applied in a manner that nullifies or substantially alters substantive rights.