Introduction

What we speak or write are the means of communication. No problem

arises when the words are of single meaning, but those with plural
meanings require the basic intend of the conveyor to be understood. If two
people conversing with each other, surely whatever be the uncertainty in the
language will be resorted at the same time. Let us suppose we discovered a
letter written by a soldier during World War I, to his wife, there will
definitely be some words inconsistent with the others and will be
delivering more than one meaning. The best way to understand the real
meaning is to have a logical interpretation of his mind and the conditions
that affected his writing of the letter which will deliver the real intend of
the writer. All that we can do is to solve the mystery by our self as the
soldier is not there to make us understand the whole meaning of the letter;
the same is the case with our judiciary as they by their own intellect have
to interpret the statutes made by the legislators. In most circumstances the
language of the statute has a plain, simple and to the point meaning.
Interpretation becomes more important when it comes to uncertain and
repugnant provisions of the statues.
The reason for ambiguity of legislation is the basic nature of language. It
is not always possible to accurately convert the real intend of the
legislation into written words. The versatility of language inevitably
means that there will often be equally good or equally unconvincing
arguments for two competing interpretation. There are at times the
provisions having more than one meaning or the ambiguity in the
language. The legislature becomes functus officio after enacting the
statues. The interpreters cannot go back to the legislature and ask for the
exact meaning of the statute as the legislators would not have assumed
such a wide variety of conditions while making of any particular statute.

Thus it is totally on the Judges to interpret such provisions so that both are
effective. To avoid further ambiguities legislation has provided us with the
primary rules of interpretations. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION is
one such rule where it is held that if two or more than two provisions of the
same act are inconsistent with each other then it must be interpreted in
such a manner that effect should be given to both.

THE RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The rule of harmonious construction plays a significant role in
interpreting two or more statues or two or more parts of a statute when they
are in conflict with each other. It follows a very simple rule that every
statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole.
It is the duty of the courts to avoid “a head on clash” between two sections
of the same act and, “whenever it is possible to do so, to construe provisions
which appear to conflict possible so that they harmonise”.

As stated by Venkatarama Aiyar, J.; “The rule of construction is well

settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be
reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that; if possible,
effect should be given to both. This is what known as the rule of
Harmonious Construction”. That, effect should be given to both, is the very
essence of the rule. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions
to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” is not harmonious construction. To
harmonise is not to destroy.

It is a settled rule that an interpretation which results in hardship,

injustice, inconvenience or anomaly should be avoided and that which
supports the sense of justice should be adopted. The Court leans in favour of
an interpretation which conforms to justice and fair play and prevents
injustice.
On a conspectus of the case-law, the following principles are discernible:

• It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head on clash between two

sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be
in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them.
• The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision
contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable
to find a way to reconcile their differences.
• When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as
way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.
• Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one
provision to a useless number or a dead lumbar is not harmonious
construction.
• To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render
it otiose.

Interpretation of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of Indian Constitution

and Article 21 which explains “Protection of life and personal liberty: No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law (Court interpreted procedure needs to be just)”;
by Hon’ble Supreme Court was a milestone judgment and acknowledged
the meaning of Fundamental Rights to the people of India. The expound
interpretation of this article provided fundamental beneficial rights and
the much wider implementation of Article 21. Interpretation of locus
standi has widened the scope for Public Interest Litigation through which
any public spirited person can file a petition on behalf of those who has no
access to Court. Such interpretations proved to be a good step with regards
to process of justice door step in the developing country like India. By
expounding its area of interpretation the judiciary has been criticized for
entering into the territory of Legislation and quoted it as “Over Judicial
Activism”.

CASE ANALYSIS

1. Prof.Yashpal and Anr. V. State of Chhattisgarh (AIR (2005) SC 2026)

FACTS-

Professor Yashpal, an eminent Scientist and former Chairman of

University Grants Commission, has filed Writ Petition No.19 of 2004
under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation
for declaring certain provisions of The Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 as
ultra vires and for quashing of the notifications issued by State of
Chhattisgarh in the purported exercise of power conferred by Section 5 of
the said Adhiniyam for establishing various universities. Under Section
5 of the Act the State has been empowered to incorporate and establish a
university by issuing a notification in the Gazette and Section 6 permits
such university to affiliate any college or other institution or to set up
more than one campus with the prior approval of the State Government.
The main averments in the petition are that after coming into force of the
Act, the State Government has been, simply by issuing notifications in
the Gazette, establishing universities in an indiscriminate and
mechanical manner without having slightest regard to the availability of
any infrastructure, teaching facility or their financial resources. In a
short span of about one year as many as 112 universities were established
and many of them had absolutely no buildings or campus and were
running from one room tenements. There was absolutely no regulation or
supervision over them. The legislation has been enacted in a manner which
has completely done away with any kind of control of University Grants
Commission (for short ‘UGC’) over these private universities. The
guidelines issued by UGC on the courses being taught and award of
academic degrees have been given a complete go-by. The universities issued
brochures for award of all kinds of degrees like “Member of the
International Institute of Medical Sciences”, “Fellow of the International
Institute of Medical Sciences” and many other similar degrees. The
universities are wholly incapable of imparting any education much less a
quality education in absence of basic infrastructure like classrooms,
libraries, laboratories or campus. Nevertheless by conferment of a legal
status of a university, they have been empowered to award degrees. The
private universities are running professional courses without taking prior
permission from regulatory bodies such as All India Council of Technical
Education (AICTE), Medical Council of India (MCI), Dental Council of
India (DCI), etc. The requirement of obtaining prior permission from the
regulatory bodies has not been followed and the universities are not under
the control of any authority and are at liberty to grant degrees, diplomas
and certificates to gullible students. The State Government has not done
any verification or checking of universities after issuance of notification
in the Gazette, whether they fulfil any norms laid down by the statutory
bodies, which is essential for recognition of the degrees, diplomas and
certificates awarded by such universities. In absence of requisite
permission from the statutory bodies, the degrees and certificates awarded
by such universities would not be recognized by the professional
organizations, as a result whereof the students studying in such
universities and obtaining the degrees there from would suffer immense
loss, both in terms of money and also the time spent in completing the
courses. It is further averred that the University Grants Commission Act
is made nugatory as private universities are offering courses without
subscribing to the standards laid down by the UGC and there being no
homogeneity of the course content, the degree awarded may not be of any
value. The private universities are offering unheard of courses and degrees
which are not part of schedule to the UGC Act, which is in clear violation of
Section 22 of the aforesaid Act and the Schedule appended thereto. The
minimum requirement of teaching staff as laid down in the guidelines of
UGC had also been given a complete go-by.

JUDGEMENT-

In order to protect the interests of the students who may be actually

studying in the institutions established by such private Universities, it is
directed that the State Government may take appropriate measures to have
such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in
Chhattisgarh. Provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji
Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,
2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence
of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in
the Gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the
aforesaid Act notifying the Universities are quashed and such
Universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established
by such Universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already
existing State Universities.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

I am in the favour of the judgment of Supreme Court. It is really an

alarming situation that a University providing degree is bereft of the
basic infrastructure like classrooms, libraries, laboratories or campus. If
the general norms of the education are not fulfilled how one can even
think of talking about quality education. The act was passed to welcome
private universities as the state failed to gather enough funds for is
education. In our education system students enroll themselves easily on
the basis of family background and getting degree the same way will be a
much awaited utopia for them. Special provisions are required to correct the
loopholes in the education system. Much transparency is required so that
people do not treat education as a money making business. State has the
power under section 5 to establish a university and section 6 permits such
university to affiliate a college with the prior approval of the State
Government. Misusing the sections, the state government instead of
having their own full fledge universities affiliated a number of colleges.
The motive of Project Report submitted was very noble as it provides for the
setting up of universities which will improve the literacy rate and over all
development of the state, but the non completion of the act have led to the
problem for students and specially their parents who wasted their time,
money and lost the faith on the system of governance. The Supreme
Court’s judgment however provided a light of hope as the standard of
education must not be compromised whether it is in state list or in the
union list.

CONCLUSION

Harmonise Construction has helped Judges to interpret the two confronting

laws easily and has proved fruitful in providing the justice to society at
large. This does not mean that judicial interpretations always predicted
the true and as per intention of the legislation. More or less their
interpretation power has provided them a room for their own ideas to
flourish. Although they in most of the cases have tried their best to make
sense out of miserably worded statute.
The legislative’s incapacity to consider all the possible conditions of the
future is reasonable, and thus it the work of judiciary to make age old
laws workable through logical interpretations

Judges must control their own thoughts and philosophy which affects the
judgement and many a times end up in making of new laws. Filling up
of such gaps will ensure that the interpretation by judiciary in the future
will yield fruit bearing results for all.