VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 4 MAY 2023 ISSN: 2582-7340

VOLUME 3 | ISSUE 4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH

MISCHIEF RULE
- Sreeja Srivastava1

1.INTRODUCTION
One of the most important and the principal duty which are vested on the judiciary is the
interpretation of the statutes or the laws which are in force. When the courts deliver
justice in a legal dispute, they strictly abide with the boundaries framed by the legal
frameworks which encompasses certain laws, statutes, The Constitution and delegated
legislations. The legal framework of a democratic country like India includes a plethora
of legislations and regulations. The Legislature with the compliance of the procedural
Parliamentary rules, formulates and drafts certain written statutes and legislations. The
courts deliver justice in a legal matter by interpreting the underlying principles in these
legislations. The written laws are substantiated by the courts and justice is administered
by the courts through the pronouncement of verdict over the legal dispute. For the
purpose of interpreting statues and to prevent any wrongful interpretation of the laws, the
court should follow certain rules to shape these laws. So, one of the most basic rules of
interpretation is the Literal rule of Interpretation of statutes where the court interprets the
wordings of the law as it is. However, there may be certain loopholes which may be
found in the law due to which it is not interpret a straight-forward understanding of the
language of the statutes. It may lead to ambiguity and absurdity if the courts interpret the
natural meaning of the language used in the statute.

1
Student at Amity University, Patna
For general queries or to submit your research for publication, kindly email us at editorial@ijalr.in

https://www.ijalr.in/

©2023 International Journal of Advanced Legal Research

2.MISCHIEF RULE
 This rule is called Mischief Rule because it focuses on curing the mischief.
 This rule was originated in Heydon’s case in the year 1584. And in this case,
there are four important things that are to be focused upon and which follows
the true and sure interpretation:-

a. What was the common law before making of this act?

b. What was the mischief/ defect in this law due to which a new law had to
be enacted
c. What is the remedy now provided by the Act of Parliament to deal with
the mischief or defect for which the common law did not provide a cute?
d. The true reason of the remedy
The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the
literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on
Parliament’s intent. Legislative intent is determined by examining
secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review
articles and corresponding statutes.

3.PURPOSE
The purpose of this rule was to suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy.
The mischief rule is used by judges in statutory interpretation in
orderto discover legislature’s intention. It essentially ask the question:
By creating an Act of Parliament what was the “mischief” that the
previous or existing law did not cover and this act covers.
The mischief rule has lots of outcomes than the others that would
result if the application was of the literal rule in the case of (Smith
v. Huges 1960).
The mischief rule created in the century, and after some time, this
rule was used in the environment of legislation which was a lot
different from the one which was there in the last two centuries.
2
 If we see the Elmer Driedger notes, 16 thcentury common law
judges looked on the statutes as a shining in comparison with the
common law. Therefore, statutes were seen from the point of view
of the effect on the common law, as adding up to it, subtracting
from it or patching it. At that time also, judges had more attention
to the spirit of the law in the Heydon’s case. When they found the
mischief, they began making the mischief with the words of the
statute. They have a finishing to the statute or remodelled the
statute, by putting all the things in order to be perfectly fit in the
mischief and defect which was found by them.

4.MODERN USE
Modern courts apply mischief rule in a more restricted way, and giving regard to the
integrity and prosperity of the statutes which are interpreted by them. Driedger says,
“to this day, Heydon’s Case is frequently cited. The courts still look for the mischief
and the remedy, but now use what they find as aids to discover the meaning of what
the legislature has said rather to change it.” He argues that this rule of modern use of
the rule of mischief has to be understood as one of the components of he had
categorised as the modern style statutory construction, not to be standing alone rule
type of serving which it had already been there. This would be an alternative to the
methods of construction proposed by the original meaning rule and the golden rule.

5.ADVANTAGES
 The fact that the judge has greater flexibility with this rule.
 The fact that this rule helps achieve Parliamentary intent.
 This rule helps avoid absurdity and injustice
 Regarded by most modern commentators as the best of the three rules, giving
effect as it does to the true intention of Parliament.

DISADVANTAGES

 The Reliance on extrinsic aids and their associated problems.

3
  That the use of this rule is limited due to the purposive approach.
 It means that judges can rewrite Statute Law, which only Parliament is
allowed to do and it must be possible to discover the mischief in order for the
rule to be used.
 Determining Parliament’s supposed intention requires the use of a wide range
of aids and presumptions.

6.CASE LAWS
SMITH VS. HUGES 1960

Law: Street Offences Act, 1958: it is an offence to solicit in a street for the purpose of
of prostitution.

Facts:-

Some prostitutes were accused of soliciting, contrary to the Act. The defendant along
with other prostitutes, sat on a balcony, or inside a building tapping on the window, to
attract the attention of men in the street.

Applying the literal rule. Will the defendant be guilty of soliciting?

Interpreted literally, there would therefore be no offence. Applying the mischief rule,
it did not matter that the women were not on the street themselves, as they were still
soliciting men in the street, which was what the act was designed to prevent. The
purpose of this act was to prevent prostitution and not only end prostitution on the
streets. They were therefore found guilty. The mischief was them tapping on the
balcony seeking attention from the street.

Lord Parker said: ‘Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the
streets. I am content to base my decision on that ground and that ground alone.’

Therefore in conclusion, it can be said that each country has their own judicial
system, and the purpose is give justice to everyone. The court has the aim to interpret
the law in such a manner that each and every citizen is given justice. The real
intention of the legislature is determined by these rules which are evolved.

4
 The words in a statue is not always clear, explicit and unambiguous and hence, in
these cases it is very important for the courts to determine a clear and explicit
definition of the words that is used by the legislatures and at the exact time to remove
every doubts if there are any.

PYARE LAL VS RAM CHANDRA

PyareLal was accused because he was selling sweetened betel nuts(supari). And the
betel nuts (supari) was made sweet with the help of artificial sweeteners. Under the
Food Adulteration Act, he was prosecuted. PyareLal said that the betel nut is not an
item of food. Afterwards, the court held that the meaning by the dictionary is not
always correct, and therefore, applicability of mischief rule is mandatory in this case.
The remedy is advanced and this shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, the
court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by mouth i.e. orally. Hence, the
prosecution of PyareLal was totally valid.

KANWAR SINGH VS FELHI ADMINISTRATION AIR 1965 SC 871

Section 418, Delhi Corporation Act,1902 permitted the corporation to round up the
cattle grazing on the government land. The MCD rounded up the cattle that belonged
to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the statute sanctioned the corporation to round
up the abandoned cattle. It was contended by Kanwar Singh that the meaning of the
word abandoned is the loss of ownership and those cattle which were round up
belonged to him and hence, was not abandoned or discontinued. The court held that
the mischief rule had to be applied and the word abandoned must be interpreted to
mean let loose or left unattended or discontinued and even the temporary loss of
ownership would also be covered as abandoned.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS SRI KRISHNA

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AIR 1962 SC 1526

Issue, in this Case, was that the respondent concerned was running a factory where four
units were for manufacturing. Out of these four units one was for paddy mill, other three
consisted of flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units respectively. The number of
employees there were more than 50 in number.The RPFC applied the provisions of

5
Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereby directing the factory to give the benefits to
the employees.

The person concerned classified the entire factory into four separate units wherein the
number of employees had fallen below 50 in number, and he argued that the provisions
were not applicable to him because the number is more than 50 in each unit. It was held
by the court that the mischief rule has to be applied mandatorily and all the four units
must be taken to be one industry, and thus, the applicability of PFA was upheld.

In the case of KANAILAL SUR VS PARAMNIDHI SADHU KHAN

It was taken into account by the honourable Supreme Court that, “the mischief rule is the
most helpful in the interpretation of statutes when the language of the statute is capable of
more than one single meaning”.

7.CONCLUSION

The Parliament is the upper most or the supreme law making body. It has been assigned
the most important task of drafting and implementing laws in the country. It is their duty
to make sure that the drafting of the statute is in such a way where there are no signs of
the quality of being open to more than one interpretation or the lack of strictness or care.
But when there are signs of the quality of being open to more than one interpretation in
the statute, then the courts must interpret the statute in such a way so that it is done in the
same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate with the intention and the
purpose of the legislature in passing the act.

In addition, the court also must not cross their limits in the name of judicial review or the
power of the courts of the courts of the country to examine the actions of the legislature,
executive and the administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such
actions are consistent with the constitution. If it gives a wider or narrower interpretation
of statute, the supremacy of the parliament must be secured in making of the laws. And
very importantly, the courts must only act as supervisors of the various laws passed by
the legislature. When the court has any of the quality of being ridiculous or wildly
unreasonable or not guided by or based on a good sense and it creates unfair injustice,

6
then only the courts should give the wider interpretation to only fulfill the purpose of
passing the statute by the legislature.

The original use of the mischief rule was that when it was created, and after some time,
this rule was used in an environment of legislature and totally different from the one
which has already to prove more powerful or superior in the past two centuries. Statutes
were viewed from the point of view of the effect that it had on the common law, as upon
adding, subtracting or patching from it. As we can see, in the Heydon’s Case, more
priority was given to the spirit of the law rather than to the letter.

8.REFERENCES

 HTTPS://BLOG.IPLEADERS.IN

 HTTPS://WWW.TAXMAN.COM

 HTTPS://WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM

 HTTPS://WWW.LAWCORNER.IN

 HTTPS://WWW.LAWOCTOPUS.COM