I.

DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

According to this doctrine, it is the duty of the court, however difficult it may be, to ascertain
in what degree, and to what extent, authority to deal with matters falling within the jurisdiction
of each legislature exists and to define in the particular case before them the limits of their
respective powers.1 It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist, and in order
to prevent such a result, entries of two lists must be read together and the language of one
interpreted and, where necessary, modified by that of the order.

In Gujarat University v. Krishna,2 a question arose whether the Gujarat State legislature was
competent to enact the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and the statute made thereunder, which
prescribes an exclusive medium in which instruction is to be imparted in the State’s
Universities. By item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, the State Legislature was
empowered to legislate in respect of “education including Universities subject to Items 63, 64,
65 and 66 of List I.” By item 66 of List I the Centre is empowered to co-ordinate and determine
the standard of higher education in institutes.

In this case it was held that the two entries undoubtedly overlap and must, therefore, be
harmoniously construed. However, it was pointed out, that how far the State legislation relating
to medium of instruction in institutions has impact upon co-ordination in higher education is
not susceptible and the majority opinion was that a statute such as one which prescribes
exclusive medium in the university, cannot be sustained as it encroaches upon the jurisdiction
of Union by virtue of Item 66 of List I.

In ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,3 a divided court by 3 to 2 majority

upheld the validity of several State laws about the agricultural produce marketing and
invalidated some of the provisions of the Tobacco Board Act enacted by Parliament. The
Parliamentary legislation was defended under Entry 52 of List I, while the State law was
defended under entry 28 read with entry 66 of List II. In this case a restrictive meaning was
given to industry as under entry 52 and held if an activity cannot be regarded as an industry,
Entry 52 to will have no applicability to that activity.

1
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 11th ed, 1999.
2
Gujarat University v. Krishna, AIR 1963 SC 703.
3
ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, AIR 2002 SC 852.