A rule of interpretation that when two provisions of the Constitution or a statute appear to conflict, the courts should read them so as to give effect to both, rather than letting one override or render the other redundant.
- The court presumes that the makers did not intend a contradiction; every provision should be given meaning and effect.
- If two provisions cannot be fully reconciled, the court adopts a reading that does least damage to either and preserves the wider scheme.
- Classically applied to reconcile concept fundamental rights (Part III) with concept directive principles (Part IV); the courts have held the two are complementary, as affirmed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).
- Also used to harmonise entries across the Union, State and Concurrent Lists in the concept seventh schedule, so that no entry is rendered nugatory.
- An early statement appears in the advisory opinion In Re the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (decided 1958).
It is the interpretive principle behind the Part III versus Part IV balance and the reading of overlapping legislative entries, both recurring polity themes.
Harmonious construction tries to save both provisions; it is invoked only when a genuine conflict appears, not to rewrite a clear provision.
Read conflicting provisions together so both survive; used to balance Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and to reconcile legislative list entries.