Interpretation of statutes should be done keeping in mind the intent of the legislature. The courts are to avoid arbitrary interpretation of statutes and therefore there have been certain principles to ascertain the true and actual meaning of statutes known as rules of interpretation.
SALMOND has defined it as “the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.”
The mischief rule attempts to find out the legislator’s intention by determining the “mischief and defect” that has been suppressed by the statute in question and ruling that would be appropriate for implementing the remedy.It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the “mischief” that the previous law did not cover?
This rule of interpretation was laid down in the case of Heydon’s Case, in which it was held four things are to be considered:-
- What was the common law before the making of the Act.
- What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
- What remedy the parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of commonwealth
- The true reason for the remedy.
This approach gives the judges discretionary power and thus enables them to change the meaning of law for the purpose of ensuring proper administration of justice in case where statutes are vague and ambiguous.
Its application is narrower than the golden rule or the literal rule of interpretation in the sense that it can only be used to interpret a statute and, only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the common law. Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes.
This rule is also called as purposive construction as there is a purpose behind making this ruling. In this rule of construction, the court attempts to know the intention of the legislators for bringing in the change in the law. It also tries to analyze the mischief and the defect which was present in the previous law which leads to the creation of the new law.
Corkery v Carpenter
Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public.He was charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act ,1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage. There was no actual reference to bicycles. The court elected to use the mischief rule to decide the matter. The purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on a public highway whilst in a state of intoxication. The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore the user was correctly charged.
Bengal immunity co. v State of Bihar
Appellant company is an incorporated company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological products and medicines. Its products have extensive sales throughout the Union of India and abroad. The goods are dispatched from Calcutta by rail, steamer or air against orders accepted by the appellant company in Calcutta. The appellant company has neither any agent or manager in Bihar nor any office, godown or laboratory in that State. The Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Bihar wrote a letter to the appellant company which concluded as follows :-
“Necessary action may therefore be taken to get your firm registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. Steps may kindly be taken to deposit Bihar Sales Tax dues in any Bihar Treasury at an early date under intimation to this Department”.
The result of it could be that the appellant would have been subjected to multiple taxation.
The mischief rule was applied to the construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, observing that it was to cure the mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow of the inter-state trade or commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without any provincial barrier that the Constitution makers adopted Article 286 in the Constitution.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration
Section 418 of Delhi Corporation Act, 1902 authorised the corporation to take possession of the cattle grazing on the government land. left unattended and even the temporary loss of ownership would be covered as abandoned.
Advantages
Disadvantages
True Intention of parliament is determined
Time of the parliament is saved when judges interpret law to fill in gaps
It allows judges to consider social and technological changes
Finding the intention of Parliament can be difficult
Literal rule of interpretation is considered more reliable
It is undemocratic
The rule is out of date and does not reflect modern needs
It might cause uncertainty if a judge changes the meaning of statute
Conclusion
Mischief rule was laid down in Heydon’s case (1854) and has strict criteria which was suitable only for that period and now it is no more applicable but purposive approach which has evolved out of the mischief rule is used nowadays for interpretation of statutes .
However, statutes put into effect new social experiments and operate on a scale much larger than before. Heyden’s case itself is thus somewhat inadequate; it needs to be broadened and adopted to meet the conditions of today. Law has to be interpreted according to the current societal standards needs.
The interpretation of laws has to be purposive. This means the interpretation must sub serve the object of the enactment of the law keeping in view the supreme law, the constitution. The text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. Court has to give effect to the true object of the Act by adopting a purposive approach.This approach clearly contemplates inquiry into the policy and purpose behind the statute.
2020-5-17-1589729204