Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Mischief Rule of Interpretation: by Pawanpreet Singh Asst. Prof., RSOLS

    Uploaded by

    Pawanpreet Singh
    The mischief rule of statutory interpretation attempts to determine the legislator's intention in passing a law by examining the "mischief and defect" that the statute aimed to remedy. The rule originated from a 16th century English case and asks what problem existing law did not address that the new statute is meant to solve. Judges use the mischief rule to help discover the legislature's intent when interpreting statutes, especially in cases where other approaches like the literal rule are insufficient. The rule allows judges some discretion but it is also seen as outdated and potentially undemocratic.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mischief Rule of Interpretation: by Pawanpreet Singh Asst. Prof., RSOLS

    Uploaded by

    Pawanpreet Singh
    83 views9 pages
    The mischief rule of statutory interpretation attempts to determine the legislator's intention in passing a law by examining the "mischief and defect" that the statute aimed to remedy. The rule originated from a 16th century English case and asks what problem existing law did not address that the new statute is meant to solve. Judges use the mischief rule to help discover the legislature's intent when interpreting statutes, especially in cases where other approaches like the literal rule are insufficient. The rule allows judges some discretion but it is also seen as outdated and potentially undemocratic.

    Original Title

    Mischief Rule

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The mischief rule of statutory interpretation attempts to determine the legislator's intention in passing a law by examining the "mischief and defect" that the statute aimed to remedy. The rule originated from a 16th century English case and asks what problem existing law did not address that the new statute is meant to solve. Judges use the mischief rule to help discover the legislature's intent when interpreting statutes, especially in cases where other approaches like the literal rule are insufficient. The rule allows judges some discretion but it is also seen as outdated and potentially undemocratic.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    83 views9 pages

    Mischief Rule of Interpretation: by Pawanpreet Singh Asst. Prof., RSOLS

    Uploaded by

    Pawanpreet Singh
    The mischief rule of statutory interpretation attempts to determine the legislator's intention in passing a law by examining the "mischief and defect" that the statute aimed to remedy. The rule originated from a 16th century English case and asks what problem existing law did not address that the new statute is meant to solve. Judges use the mischief rule to help discover the legislature's intent when interpreting statutes, especially in cases where other approaches like the literal rule are insufficient. The rule allows judges some discretion but it is also seen as outdated and potentially undemocratic.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 9

    Mischief Rule of Interpretation

    By Pawanpreet Singh
    Asst. Prof., RSOLS
    Mischief RULE OF INTERPRETATION

    • This rule attempts to determine the legislator's


    intention. Originating from a 16th century case in
    the United Kingdom, its main aim is to determine
    the "mischief and defect" that the statute in
    question has set out to remedy, and what ruling
    would effectively implement this remedy.

    • Mischief literally means a cause or source of


    harm, evil, or irritation. 
    Contd.
    • The Mischief Rule is used by judges in
    statutory interpretation in order to discover
    legislature's intention.

    • It essentially asks 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
    Evolution of The Rule
    • This rule was developed by Lord Coke in Sir John Heydon's
    Case, 1584, where it was stated that there were four points
    to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute:

    1. What was the common law before the making of the act?
    2. What was the "mischief or defect" for which the common
    law did not provide?
    3. What remedy the parliament hath resolved and
    appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth?
    4. What is the true reason of the remedy?
    Use/ Application of The Rule
    • 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.
    • This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities
    in cases in which the literal rule cannot be applied.
    Scope of Rule
    • This rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or
    the plain meaning rule, in 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. This rule has often
    been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which the
    literal rule cannot be applied.

    • As seen In Smith v Hughes, the mischief approach gave a


    more sensible outcome than that of the literal approach.
    Advantages

    • The Law Commission sees it as a far more


    satisfactory way of interpreting acts as
    opposed to the Golden or Literal rules.

    • It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in


    sentencing
    Disadvantages
    • It is seen to be out of date as it has been in use since the 16th
    century, when common law was the primary source of law and
    parliamentary supremacy was not established.

    • It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued


    to be undemocratic.

    • In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf
    of the king and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the
    act was meant to remedy, however, such is not the case any more.

    • It can make the law uncertain.


    Judicial Decisions
    • In the case of Thomson vs. Lord Clan Morris, Lord Lindley M.R. stated
    that in interpreting any statutory enactment regard must be had not
    only to the words used, but also to the history of the Act and the
    reasons which lead to its being passed.

    • In the case of CIT vs. Sundaradevi (1957) (32 ITR 615) (SC), it was
    held by the Apex Court that unless there is an ambiguity, it would not
    be open to the Court to depart from the normal rule of construction
    which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily to
    gather from the words which are used. It is only when the words used
    are ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and considered
    on surrounding circumstances and constitutionally proposed
    practices.

    You might also like