There is conflict between provisions of two different enactments. One was enacted in the year 1998, the other was enacted in the year 2006. What type of interpretation do you suggest to resolve the conflict between these two statutory provisions?

Facts in the Case

There is a conflict between two statutory provisions enacted by the legislature.
The first statute was enacted in the year 1998.
The second statute was enacted in the year 2006.
Both statutes contain provisions that are inconsistent with one another.
The issue arises as to how this conflict should be resolved using principles of statutory interpretation.

When two statutes contain conflicting provisions, which one should prevail?
Does the fact that one statute is more recent than the other affect its interpretative priority?
What interpretative rules should courts apply when resolving a conflict between two distinct laws?

The primary rule is to harmonize the conflicting provisions so that both enactments can be given effect.
Courts should avoid a construction that renders any provision redundant or inoperative, if both can coexist.
This approach reflects the presumption that the legislature does not enact conflicting laws knowingly.

When two statutes are irreconcilably inconsistent, the later statute (2006) prevails over the earlier statute (1998).
This principle is based on the idea that the later legislature was aware of the earlier law and intended to override it if inconsistency exists.
The newer law is assumed to reflect the current intent of the legislature.

If one of the statutes is general in nature and the other is special, the special law prevails, even if the general law is later in time.
The specific statute is presumed to have been enacted with greater attention to the particular subject matter.

Courts do not favor implied repeals. A later law does not repeal an earlier law unless:
- There is clear and irreconcilable inconsistency, and
- The two statutes cannot stand together.

In Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661, the Supreme Court laid down that if two statutes can be interpreted to coexist, such interpretation is preferable.
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 898, it was held that repeal by implication is not favored, and both laws should be given effect if possible.

The court should first attempt to harmonize both statutes using the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.
If the statutes are irreconcilably inconsistent, then the later law enacted in 2006 shall prevail over the earlier one from 1998.
However, if the earlier law is a special law and the later one is general, then the special law will prevail, regardless of its date.
The choice of interpretation depends on the nature of the statutes, extent of conflict, and legislative intent.