HEYDON’S CASE: Mischief Rule:

Purposive construction.
  Mischief rule was laid down in Heydon’s case in 1584.
 This rule is called “mischief rule” because it envisages adopting that construction by which
the mischief is suppressed.
 In this case it was observed that for the true and sure interpretation of all statutes in general
four things are to be discerned and considered:-

What was the common law before making of the Act

What was the mischief and defect for which common law did not provide

What remedy Parliament has resolved to cure the disease

The true reason of the remedy

Then the judges shall always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy.
 BENGAL IMMUNITY Co. Ltd v. STATE OF BIHAR
AIR 1955 SC 661

The Supreme court reiterated the Heydon’s rule in this case

 In this case, the Supreme court explained this rule and observed that it is a sound rule of
construction of a statute in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon’s case was decided,
that for sure and true interpretation of statutes in general, be it penal or beneficial, restrictive
or enlarging of common law, four things are to be considered:-
What was the common law before making of the Act
What was the mischief and defect for which common law did not provide
What remedy Parliament has resolved to cure the disease
The true reason of the remedy.
Commr. Of Income tax, M.P & Bhopal v. Sodra devi
AIR 1957 SC 832

 The supreme Court in this case 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.
 The court observed that the Correct principle is that after the words have
been construed in their context and it is found that the language is capable
of bearing only construction, the rule in Heydon’s case ceases to be
controlling and gives way to the plain meaning rule.
 PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION
 This rule is also referred to as “Purposive Construction” since it lays emphasis
on advancing the purpose and the object of the statute.
 This rule, though so old, is still universally accepted and is even today most
firmly established rule of construction of such material words which are
capable of having two or more meanings.
 In Maharashtra Land Development Corporation v. State ( 2011) 15 SCC 616
HELD:- The provisions of a statute must be construed in tune with the purpose
of its enactment.
 State of U.P v. Hari Ram
AIR 2013 SC 1793
 Held:- Each word, phrase or sentence that is in a statutory provision, if not
defined in the Act, then must be construed in the light of the general
purpose of the Act.
 The words and phrases occurring in the statute are not to be taken out in an
isolated or detached manner but construed in the light of the purpose and
object of the Act.
 Peyarelal v Mahadeo Ramachandra
AIR 1974 SC 228
 In this case a charge under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was brought
against the appellant for selling and keeping for sale supari which was sweetened with a
banned artificial sweetener.
 The appellant argued that supari was not a food within the meaning of the Act.
 The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that supari is an article of food.
 The Supreme Court emphasized that the word food should be interpreted in the context of
the mischief which the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was intended to suppress
and advance the remedy. Therefore, from all angles taken separately or jointly had no other
meaning except that it was a food within the meaning of the Act.