Where in an enactment, there are two provisions which cannot be reconciled, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, the effect may be given to both. Explain this statement.

Where in an enactment, there are two provisions which cannot be reconciled, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both. This is what is known as the " rule of harmonious construction ". The rule may be understood with the help of below mentioned cases: A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between a section and other parts of the statute. 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 construct provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise" ( Raj Krishna v. Pinod Kanungo, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 202 at 203 ). The Supreme Court applied this rule in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution and it was held that the right of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion [Article 26(b)] is subject to a law made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)]. ( Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255 ).