MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION

 Often referred to as Heydon’s Rule, the Mischief Rule of

Interpretation is one of the most important rules of
interpretation.
 In legal parlance, the word mischief is normally understood to be
a kind of specific injury or damage resulting from another
person’s action or inaction.
 But in relation to rules of interpretation, mischief  means  to
prevent the misuse of provisions of a statute.
 It is widely known as the mischief rule primarily because it
focuses on curing the mischief.

 As per the Mischief Rule of Interpretation, a statute must be

construed in such a way as to suppress the Mischief. Mischief
should not have a place in the statute. If an attempt is made to
add Mischief in any statute, then it must be prevented by the
Mischief Rule of interpretation.

 The Rule of Mischief says that the statute should be

construed in such a way to suppress the Mischief.

 The main aim of the rule 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.
In applying the Mischief Rule, the court is essentially asking
what part of the law, did the law not cover, but was meant to be
rectified by the parliament in passing the bill.
The intention of this rule is to make such an interpretation as
shall suppress that mischief and advance the remedy.

In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which
have to be followed for true and sure interpretation of all the
statutes in general, which are as follows-
1. What was the common law before the making of an act?
2. What was the mischief for which the present statute was
enacted?
3. What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and
appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth?
4. The true reason of the remedy. The purpose of this rule is to
suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

 The core purpose behind the rule is to suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy.
Therefore, there lies a duty upon the Courts of Law to construct
the statute in a way such that it suppresses the mischief and
promotes the remedy in accordance with the intention of the
legislature.

CASE LAWS:

1. SMITH V. HUGES, 1960 WLR 830, 

 In this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in
the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in
London.
 This was causing a great problem in maintaining law and order.
 To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was
enacted.
 After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started
soliciting from windows and balconies.
 Since, this defeated the intention of the legislation, some
prostitutes were charged under Section 1(1) of the said Act.
 But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not soliciting from “the
streets.”
 The court rejected their argument and applied the mischief rule
of interpretation by stating that the inducement by them from
the windows and balconies of their houses is also prohibited
under the Act.
 The court justified this by stating that the purpose of the Act
was to prevent prostitution.
 Hence, due to the application of the mischief rule, the court held
that ‘the windows and balconies of their homes would count
for an extension of the word and would come within the
ambit of the word ‘street’.

2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER V. SRI

KRISHNA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 1962 AIR 1536

 In this case, the factory listed as respondent comprised of 4 units

for manufacturing.
 The 4 units operated as paddy mill, flour mill, saw mill and
copper sheet units.
 The number of employees there were more than 50.
 By the application of the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund Act 1952, the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner directed the factory to furnish the employees with
benefits.
 On the contrary, the respondent refused to comply on the
ground that, separately, each of the 4 units comprised of less
than 50 employees.
 Arguing on the aforesaid grounds, he stated that the provisions of
the Act did not apply to him.
 Nonetheless, the court was of the opinion that the mischief
rule needed to be applied in this case. Therefore, considering
all the 4 units to be one industry.

3. PYARE LAL V. RAM CHANDRA, 

PYARALI K. TEJANI V. MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE &
ORS. 

 The accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the supari
which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener.
 He was prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act.
 It was contended that supari is not a food item.
 The court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the
correct meaning, thereby, the mischief rule must be applicable,
and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be taken
into consideration.
 Therefore, the court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by
mouth and orally and held supari to be an ‘article of food’
under the Act.
 Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.

4. RANJET ODESIEY V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (A.I.R.

1965 S.C. 881).
 The accused was charged under section 292 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, which is a punishable offence for selling or
having possession for sale of the obscene book.
 Accused argued that the shopkeeper is not expected to go
through each book to see whether books contain obscene
literature.
 He had not read the book ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover earlier.
Therefore, his case does not come under section 292.
 But the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the accused on
the basis of Mischief Rule.

5. SODRA DEVI'S CASE (1957 AIR 832),

The Supreme Court has expressed the view that the rule in
Heydon's case is applicable only when the words in the question
are ambiguous and are reasonably capable of more than one
meaning.