Interpretation of Statutes Project

MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment for Internal Component for the award of the Degree
B.Com., LL.B. Hons

Aaryan N

BC0160001

Under the guidance and supervision of

Assistant Professor Mr. Balashanmugam

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

TIRUCHIRAPALLI

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5

Heydon’s case and analysis ....................................................................................................... 5

Heydon’s rule of interpretation (Why was it used?) .................................................................. 6

What were some landmark judgments in which the rule has been applied? ............................. 7

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 13

2
DECLARATION

I hereby declare the project titled “Mischief Rule of Interpretation ” submitted to the Tamil
Nadu National Law University in partial fulfilment to award the degree of Under
graduation is a presentation of my Original work. Wherever contributions of others are
involved, every effort is made to indicate that clearly, with due reference to the literature,
and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions. The work has been
done under the guidance of Dr Balashanmugam, and has not formed the basis of any
degree , diploma , fellowship or any other title to any candidate of any University.

Place:
Tiruchirappalli

Date:
12.10.2018

(Aaryan N)

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset of submitting this research project, I would like to express my profound thanks

to our Vice Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) Kamala Sankaran, for giving us this wonderful

opportunity in the avenue of research and having faith in us that we will do well in this field

given the limitation that we are undergraduate students. I would also like to thank her for the

support extended through various forms for writing this research project.

Secondly, I would like to thank our professor, Dr Balashanmugam, for his unfailing

support that she extends to her students impartially. I would like to thanks him for the

abysmal effort he takes in helping us with the research project. Saying that he is a great

support and the reason for this research project is not an exaggeration.

Thirdly, I would like to thank my peers for all the support extended and the patience

upheld during this course of research. I would like to thank my family for the moral support

that I get when I am totally down.

Lastly, I would like to thank God Almighty for keeping me in good health both in
mind and body throughout my research and the days to come.

4
INTRODUCTION

The mischief rule of interpretation that is applied when a word that is used in a statue
becomes ambiguous and its meaning is indiscernible on the face of it/ Then shifting from the
literal rule of interpretation the Court moves onto a purposive rule of interpretation that takes
into account the intent of legislation and then tried to fix the ambiguous word with its meaning.
This rule is otherwise called the Heydon’s rule or as earlier said, the mischief rule as it was
devised from the “Heydon’s case1” which is an old English case on lease of a property.

The aim and objective of this paper is clearly help the reader understand the scope and
functioning of the Mischief rule of interpretation of statutes. This will entail in a brief
understanding of the case, and then looking into the question of how the rule came into being
in the first place. Then the paper will try to capture the trend in application of the said rule in
specific cases. Furthermore, the paper will deal with the stoppage in application of the said rule
in the current day scenario and the landmark cases that feature the said rule

HEYDON’S CASE 2AND ANALYSIS

The facts and circumstances of this case run as follows, there was a religious college
called “Ottery” gave a tenancy to a Manor also called “Ottery” to a man named Ware and his
son. This tenancy was established by a “copyhold” (a mode of tenancy where land is held by
the custom of the manor and the title deed was an entry in a Manorial Court Roll). Ware and
his son were to hold the copyhold till their lives. At a later point in time, the same land was
leased to one name Heydon for a period of 80 years.

After this an enactment was passed by the Parliament called the “Act of Dissolution”
which had an effect of dissolving all religious colleges, Ottery which lost its land rents to the
then King. It is also pertinent to note that this Act did not concern itself with any grants made
more than a year long prior to the enactment of this legislation. And so it was confirmed that
the grant made to Wares was protected by the relevant provision of the Act of Dissolution, but
was also held that the lease was void.

1
(1584) 76 ER 637
2
Ibid.

5
 This case is very important case for the current discussion as this was the case in which
the Heydon’s rule or the mischief rule of interpretations of statue was formulated. As Lord
Coke decided this issue he said that “the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the commonwealth. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the
judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the
remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief”. The
"mischief rule" from Heydon's Case 3reads as follows:

Four things are to be discerned and considered --

1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act?

2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

3rd. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?

And, 4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the Judges is always to make
such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress
subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and
to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the
Act, pro bono publico.4

HEYDON’S RULE OF INTERPRETATION (WHY WAS IT USED?)

Where the words of an Act are precise and narrow (a comparatively infrequent situation
in modern Acts) a court will, although in most cases holding itself to be bound down by the "
literal rule ", sometimes invoke the " purpose " of the Act and use it to extend the prima facie
meaning to cover a situation which is within the spirit of the Act. The courts are reluctant thus
to abandon the literal rule in favour of Heydon's Case, but they will occasionally do it.5

The main advantage of The Mischief Rule is that it closes loopholes in the law and
allows laws to develop. The Mischief Rule gives the most discretion to judges and is suited to

3
Ibid.
4
Reinterpreting Statutory Interpretation, Carlos E. Gonzalez, 74 N.C. L. Rev. 585 1995-1996.
5
Notes, 55 S. African L.J. 322 1938

6
specific, often ambiguous cases. The rule allows statutes to be refined and developed. The
mischief rule helps to avoid absurdity and unjust results when there is ambiguity with regard
to certain provisions of a particular statute of the phrase in a particular provision of law. This
method of statutory interpretation promotes flexibility in the law, in the sense that it gives law
more room to develop unlike the Literal rule or the golden rule of statutory interpretation. It
allows judges to put into effect the remedy Parliament chose to cure since there is a lot of
discretion given to the judges and room for them to work to create a suitable solution tailor
made to every case at hand. This rule looks at the gap in the previous law as it a part of the
application of the said rule of interpretation. Allows the law to develop and change to society.

WHAT WERE SOME LANDMARK JUDGMENTS IN WHICH THE RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED?

Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. vs. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd6.

The mischief rule and it requisites for applicability was discussed in this court. It was
said in this case that,
“First, it was possible to determine from a consideration of the provisions of the Act read as a
whole precisely what the mischief was that it was the purpose of the Act to remedy; secondly,
it was apparent that the draftsman and Parliament had by inadvertence overlooked, and so
omitted to deal with an eventuality that required to be dealt with if the purpose of the Act was
to be achieved; and thirdly, it was possible to state with certainty what were the additional
words that would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by Parliament had their
attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill passed into law. Unless this third condition
is fulfilled any attempt by a court of justice to repair the omission in the Act cannot be justified
as an exercise of its jurisdiction to determine the meaning of a written law which Parliament
has passed.”
In finality the court put limits on itself before the usage of purposive interpretation to solve the
conflict in interpretation arising in each factual situation. Because the application of purposive
interpretation would deem the scope of the statute of legislation too wide and making it
susceptible to more attacks on ambiguity.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors.7

6
[1971] 1 WLR 1751.
7
AIR 2004 SC 1340

7
The mischief rule as was envisioned in the Heydon’s case has been reproduced in this judgment
where the issue was the liability of the insurer as under the motor vehicles Act. 1988. The
Court also talks about the legislative intent in making such a law and the mischief it tried to
prevent as needed under section 27 of the said Act.

The Halsbury’s Laws of India portion was read into the case saying that

”The doctrine originates in Heydon's case where the Barons of the Exchequer resolved that for
the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive
or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered.
(1) what was the common law before the making of the Act;
(2) what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide;
(3) What remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth; and
(4) the true reason of the remedy, and then the office of all the judges is always to make such
construction as shall:
(a) suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; and
(b) suppress subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance of the mischief pro
privato commodo private benefit); and
(c) add force and life to the cure and remedy according to the true intent of the makers
of the Act pro public (for the public good).”8
The Court has also relied on various other judgements wherein the mischief rule was applied
and substantiated the need for the application of the mischief rule in the case at hand.

Kehar Singh & Ors vs. State (Delhi Admn.)9

This is the case of “Operation Blue Star” where armed army personnel moved into the Amristar
Golden temple to flush out the terrorists and this action offended a lot of religious fanatics and
provoked a lot of them. This finally resulted in the assignation of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the
Supreme Court finally decreed to award death penalty to the three accused and also convicted
them under sections 302, 120B, 34, 107, 109 of the IPC.

8
Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 44(1), fourth reissue, para 1474, pp 906- 07
9
AIR 1988 SC 1883

8
Mischief rule was applied in the case to decide the ambiguity surrounding Section 6 of the
Arms Act, 1959. The Court in settling the confusion in the phrase “used against” has spoken
about the various rules of interpretation and has said that

“.. if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we
deem it as our paramount duty to put upon the language of the legislature rational meaning.
We then examine every word, every section and every provision. We examine the Act as a
whole. We examine the necessity which gave rise to the Act. We look at the mischief(s) which
the legislature intended to redress. We look at the whole situation and not just one-to-one
relation. We will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. We will not
view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force, behind. We will
consider the provisions in the circumstances to which they owe their origin. We will consider
the provisions to ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid
undesirable consequences.”
The court has thus efficiently and sufficiently elaborated on the mischief rule of interpretation.

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.10

The principal question is whether the tax to be levied on the sales made by the appellant is
leviable by the State of Bihar. This action was done by construing article 286 whose
interpretation came into question and the meaning granted to it in the case of The State of
Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd. was overruled. It raises a question of construction
of article 286 of the Constitution.

It was held that “In order to properly interpret the provisions of that article it is, therefore,
necessary to consider how the matter stood immediately before the Constitution came into
force, what the mischief was for which the old law did not provide and the remedy which has
been provided by the Constitution to cure that mischief.” Hence the mischief rule was
interpretation was applied on an Constitutional Article to interpret it so as to give it proper
meaning to the situation at hand. The opinion of the dissenting judges was not that mischief
rule would not be applicable to the current case at hand, but that the mischief rule is to be
differently applied to the case at hand. It is pertinent to note that since mischief rule gives a

10
AIR 1955 SC 661

9
wide discretionary power to the judge and also provides for the influence of the judge’s moral
and ethical values of the judges deciding the issue11.

One other important inference from this chapter of cases and the following of the Mischief rule
of interpretation would be that, the principle from being expounded in the 16th century case
law, has not been changed since its inception. And this talks about the foresight of the judges
deciding the Heydon’s case. It is also pertinent to note that, this rule of statutory interpretation
is still being used in cases and yet has remained unchanged because it is such a flexible rule
and allows for the moulding of this rule of interpretation to specific factual situation of each
case on which it is applied. Thereby meaning to say that although there is objectivity in this
rule of interpretation, the subjectivity provides for the flexible nature and hence the mischief
rule has stood the test of time.

Richa Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors12

In this case the Court has summarised the in brief summarised as to how and when it
would look to the mischief rule and has also discussed the fringing legal principles that would
occur simultaneously with the Heydon’s rule of statutory interpretation. It has been said that

“...while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for
which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule,
first propounded in Heydon's Case. ... The court would also invoke the legal maxim
construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in cases where alternative constructions are
possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working
of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block
in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to
achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a
construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder
construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing
about an effective result.”

11
"Mischief Rule" as used in the case of Bengal Immunity Case, Chhavi Agarwal,
http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=14b28fc7-0df0-4ce6-88b6-
5401d219f205&txtsearch=Subject:%20Taxation

12
AIR 2016 SC 753

10
Disadvantages

It allows judges to apply their opinions and prejudices - an infringement on the separation of
powers. This means that the law will take its own turns in developing and that would be subject
to the ethical and moral views of the judges who interpret this said law or statute. Judges can
re-write statue law which only parliament is permitted to do, in the sense that the judges are
given a lot of discretionary power under the name of interpretation of law to tweak laws
according to their own whims and fancies. Judges can bring their own prejudices into play in
particular cases which goes against the very virtue of being a judge who would be unbiased
with regard to the parties bringing the suit and also away from his own moral and ethical
influences. It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be
undemocratic.

11
CONCLUSION

The mischief, and the remedy: that is, how the common law stood at the making of the
act; what the mischief was, for which the common law did not provide; and what remedy the
parliament hath provided to cure this mischief. And it is the business of the judges so to
construe the act, as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy is the basis for the
mischief rule of law. 13 The rule has been applied in courts across various jurisdictions to
interpret statutes for years now. The best thing or the reason why this rule of interpretation has
stood for this long is the flexibility character of this. The rule is not too narrow so as to limit
the interpretation nor is it too wide so as to be very loosely be applied wherever the Court saw
fit.

Across landmark cases, this rule has been applied with various other related principles
like the principles of purposive interpretation and the latin maxim that works with the said rule
of interpretation. The other important thing about this statutory rule of interpretation is it is not
dependant on set procedures to be followed before the said rule can be applied unlike the
system in the Literal Rule and the Golden Rule. This rule can be applied wherever an ambiguity
arises with regard to a statute and if the Court deemed that situation to be fit for the application
of the rule, it would be applied.

13
The History of Statutory Interpretation: A Study in Form and Substance, William S. Blatt, 6 Cardozo L. Rev.
799 1984-1985

12
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

The History of Statutory Interpretation: A Study in Form and Substance, William S. Blatt, 6
Cardozo L. Rev. 799 1984-1985

Reinterpreting Statutory Interpretation, Carlos E. Gonzalez, 74 N.C. L. Rev. 585 1995-1996.

Notes, 55 S. African L.J. 322 1938

Websites

http://www.manupatrafast.com

www.scconline.com

Case laws.

Heydon’s case, (1584) 76 ER 637.

Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. vs. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd, [1971] 1 WLR 1751.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 1340

Kehar Singh & Ors vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883.

Richa Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors, AIR 2016 SC 753.

13