Facts in the Case
- A statute contains two provisions (Sections) that appear to be in direct conflict with one another.
- Both sections are part of the same Act, passed by the same legislature, and are intended to operate together.
- The contradiction is such that both provisions cannot be given full effect simultaneously without causing legal inconsistency.
- The question arises: How should such an irreconcilable conflict be resolved?
Issues in the Case
- What is the proper rule of interpretation when two provisions of the same statute contradict each other?
- Can both provisions be harmonized, or must one prevail over the other?
- If not harmonizable, which provision should be given effect?
Principles Applied
1. Rule of Harmonious Construction
- The first and foremost principle is that courts will try to reconcile the two provisions.
- The doctrine of harmonious construction requires that the statute must be read as a whole, and conflicting provisions must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to both, if possible.
Case Law: Raj Krishna v. Binod AIR 1954 SC 202
- The Supreme Court held that when two sections are apparently conflicting, they must be interpreted harmoniously so that no part is rendered redundant.
2. If Harmony is Not Possible — Later Provision Prevails
- If harmonization is not possible, then the later provision prevails as per the rule:
“Generalia specialibus non derogant” – general provisions do not override special provisions. - Additionally, where the two are irreconcilable, and both are part of the same enactment:
- The section later in position or enacted later in time may prevail over the earlier one.
Case Law: Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255
- The court observed that when two provisions are in irreconcilable conflict, and harmonization fails, the later provision will override the former.
3. Purpose and Object of the Statute
- The intention of the legislature is the guiding principle.
- Courts must look at the object of the Act, and interpret the provisions in such a way that the purpose of the legislation is not defeated.
Case Law: State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the object and purpose of the Act must guide the interpretation when provisions conflict.
Judgment / Conclusion
- Where there is an irreconcilable contradiction between two provisions of the same statute, courts must first:
- Apply the rule of harmonious construction to give effect to both.
- If reconciliation is not possible, then:
- The later section may prevail over the earlier one, especially if it reflects a more specific intention of the legislature.
- Interpretation must always be aligned with the spirit, purpose, and context of the Act.
