Mischief Rule of Interpretation

In mischief rule it is found out what is mischief or wrong in the statute in question
and then it is interpreted. Its main aim to determine the mischief and defect in the
law that is in question and to set out remedy for the same. It simply means that
while interpreting one should keep in mind the mischief the act seeks to provide
remedy for. For instance if the act is to provide remedy for public employment,
then in case of ambiguity such interpretation should be given weight age.

It is also known as Heydon’s Rule as in 1584 in Heydon’s Case court laid down 4
factors that must be considered for interpretation of statute

1. What was the COMMON LAW before making of the new act?
2. What was the MISCHIEF for which common law not there?
3. What was the REMEDY provided by the law to remove the statute?
4. What was the REASON for the remedy?

In answer to these question the court laid down that an act must be framed to –

 Suppress the mischief

 Advancement of remedy
 Suppress anything that leads to continuance of that mischief
 Advancement of remedy according to the true intention of the makers of
the act for the benefit of public.
Smith v. Huges

Facts: there was a huge problem in London to maintain law and order as the
prostitutes were soliciting around the streets of London. So, in order to prevent the
prostitutes from soliciting Street Offences Act was enacted by the government. But
later on the prostitutes started soliciting from the windows and the balconies. They
were charged under Section1 (1) of the said act. The accused contented that they
were not soliciting from the streets but from their windows or balconies only.

Issue- whether soliciting from windows or balconies is an offence and comes under
the purview of term ‘streets’ under Section 1(1).

Held- court held that the main intention of the act is to prevent soliciting and to
maintain law and order. In order to understand the interpretation of the term streets,
mischief rule was applied. Thus, taking into consideration the intention of the act,
the windows and balconies were interpreted as streets and the accused were held
liable.

Elliot v Grey

Facts: The defendant in this case was held liable for using a non- insured vehicle
on the road offence under the Road Traffic Act 1930.

Issue- The defendant raised a contention that the vehicle was not being used on the
road and it was merely parked.

Held- court applied the mischief rule here and held that the main intention behind
the compulsory third party insurance is to provide compensation to a third person
caused by the hazard of using vehicle on the road. Thus, the defendant is liable

DPP v Bull

Facts: In this case a man was accused under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences
Act, 1959

Issue: Whether the term ‘common prostitute’ refer in the section is limited to only
female prostitution or male too?

Held- Court held that the defendant is not guilty under Street Offences Act, 1959.
As by the application of mischief rule it is clear that the intention behind the statute
was only to prevent soliciting done by the female prostitution and to control their
behavior.

1. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628

Law in question: Section 2(d) of The Prize Competitions Act, 1955

According to this " prize competition" means any competition (whether called a
cross- word prize competition, a missing- word prize competition, a picture prize
competition or by any other name) where prizes are given for the solution of any
puzzle based on the building, arrangement, combination or permutation, of letters,
words, or figures.

Issue: Whether the word ‘any competition’ used in Section 2(d) of The Prize
Competitions Act, 1955 involves only competition which are of gambling nature or
also those in which success is dependent on a substantial degree of skill.

Held:

Court held that while interpretation of a statute history of the legislation, its
purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress must be taken into consideration to
determine the intention of the legislature. The literal meaning merely is not
sufficient to determine such intention.

Thus, the word ‘prize competition’ in Section 2(d) of The Prize Competitions Act,
1955 involves only competitions which are of gambling nature and no others.

What was the COMMON LAW No

before making of the new act?

What was the MISCHIEF for Gambling related prize competitions

which common law not there?

What was the REMEDY provided The Prize Competitions Act, 1955
by the law to remove the statute?

What was the REASON for the Control and regulation of gambling
remedy? related prize competitions

2. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Smt. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957 SC 832

Law in Question- Section 16(3) of Indian Income Tax 1922

As per Section 16(3) - In computing the total income of any individual for the
purpose of assessment, there shall be included
the income of a wife or a minor children of that individual which may arise
arises indirectly or directly
i) from the membership of wife in the firm where her husband is a
partner
ii) from the admission of a minor to the benefits of the partnership in a
firm where such individual is a partner.

Issue- Whether the word ‘individual’ in Section 16(3) of Indian Income Tax 1922
(amended by act 4 of 1937), includes a female and whether the income of minor
sons from a partnership to the benefits of which they were admitted, was liable to
be included in computing the total income of the mother who was a member of the
partnership.

Held-
Court here applied the mischief rule of interpretation to determine the intention of
the legislature while making of the statute to understand the meaning of the
ambiguous term- ‘individual’. Court here observed that the intention of Income-tax
Act was only to remedy out the evil arising from the act of husbands entering into
nominal partnerships with their wives and father involving their minor children to
the benefits of the partnerships of which they were members.

It was held that the word ‘individual in Section 16(3) of Indian Income Tax 1922
(amended by act 4 of 1937) means only a male and does not include a female.

What was the COMMON LAW No

before making of the new act?

What was the MISCHIEF for which Assessment of Income Tax

common law not there?

What was the REMEDY provided by Indian Income Tax 1922

the law to remove the statute?

What was the REASON for the To remedy out the evil arising from the
remedy? act of husbands entering into nominal
partnerships with their wives, and father
admitting their minor children to the
benefits of the partnerships of which
they were members.
 3. Bengal immunity co. v State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 

Law in Question
Appellant company took the defence under Article- 286 of the constitution of
India.
A-286. Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods
It is stated that No law of a State shall impose or authorize the imposition of a tax
on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place outside
the State

Held:
The court applied the rule of mischief in A-286 of Indian constitution as the old
law do not provide the remedy and is very chaotic after applying the rule court
goes for the intention of the parliament and held that A-286 is inserted to prevent
multiple taxation and preserve the free flow of inter-state trade and commerce.
Hence, the Bengal immunity co. is exempted from paying the tax or registering
under the Bihar sales act. Thus, the mischief rule cures the multiple taxation in this
case.
In this case the court applied mischief rule of interpretation to the construction of
Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the intention of
the statute is to cure the mischief of multiple taxes and to allow free flow of inter-
state trade and commerce without any provincial barrier.

What was the COMMON LAW No

before making of the new act?

What was the MISCHIEF for multiple taxes

which common law not there?

What was the REMEDY provided Article 289

by the law to remove the statute?

What was the REASON for the To allow free flow of inter-state trade
remedy? and commerce without any provincial
barrier.