Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation
Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation
The Mischief Rule was laid by the Barons of the Exchequer in the Heydon's case in 1584 as
follows, namely-
"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 the Parliament have resolved and appointed to cure the defect?
(4) 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.
The Mischief Rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to
discover Parliament’s intention. 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. It can
be argued that this undermines Parliament’s supremacy and is undemocratic as it takes law-
making decisions away from the legislature. 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.
In India the rule was explained by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar.
This rule was again applied in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana. In CIT v. Sodra Devi,
the Supreme Court (Bhagwati J) expressed the view that the rule in Heydon's case is applicable
only when the words in question are ambiguous and are reasonably capable of more than one
meaning. Gajendragadkar J in Kanailal Sur v. Parmanidhi pointed out that the recourse to
consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible
when the language is capable of two constructions. The Supreme Court in P.H.K. Kalliani Amma
(Smt) v. K. Devi, referred extensively to the rule in Heydon's case and to the opinions of
Bhagwati J. and Gajendragadkar J. Thus in the construction of an Act of Parliament, it is
important to consider the mischief that led to the passing of the Act and then give effect to the
remedy as stated by the Act in order to achieve its object. This has its drawbacks; the language of
the statute may have inadequately expressed the objective intended to be achieved.
Thus, the mischief rule is applicable where the language of the statute is capable of more than
one meaning. When the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute it is
proper to read that provision in its context. The context means the statute as a whole, the
previous state of law, other statutes in pari material, the general scope of the statute and the
mischief that it was intended to remedy.
Case Laws