THE MISCHIEF RULE

PREVIEW
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICABILITY
• Heydon's Case
• The Four Rules
• Garris v Scott
• Bengal Immunity Company v State of Bihar
• State of Karnataka v Appu Ingale
• CIT MP and Bhopal v Sodra Devi
3. CRITICAL APPRAISAL - MISCHIEF RULE
4. PROBLEMS WITH THE MISCHIEF RULE
5. CONCLUSION
''-- it would be idle to expect every statutory provision to be
drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity.”
• The Mischief Rule is one of three rules of statutory interpretation
traditionally applied by English courts.
• The other two are the 'plain meaning rule' (also known as the Literal
Rule) and the 'Golden Rule'
• The main aim of the Mischief 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
 Kehar Singh v. State

Defining the Mischief Rule, the Supreme Court held in that if the words are
''ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, the Court
must deem it as its paramount duty to put into the language of the Legislature
a rational meaning

Conway v Rimmer

Another example of a rule of construction that judges can apply in statutory

interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention. In applying the rule,
the court is essentially asking the question : what was the 'mischief' that the
previous law did not cover, which Parliament was seeking to remedy when it
passed the law now being reviewed by the court?
 HEYDONS RULE
([1584] 3 CO REP 7a)

This common law rule of interpretation also known as Heydon's Rule or

Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation or the rule of Beneficial
Interpretation directs a Court to interpret a statute by reference to its
original policy
 THE FOUR RULES
(a ) What was the common law before the making of the act?
(b) What was the 'mischief and defect' for which the common
law did not provide?
(c) What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to
cure the disease of the commonwealth?
(d) What is the true reason of the remedy?
1. SMITH v HUGES (1871) LR 6 QB 597)
2. GORRIS v SCOTT (1874) LR9 Exch125

3. THE BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

AND OTHERS (AIR 195 5 SC 661)

4. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. APPA BALU INGALE (1995 Supp. (4)

SCC 469)
CIT, M.P. & Bhopal v. Sodra Devi (1957 AIR 832, 1958 SCR 1)
• Holding the words ‘any individual’ and ‘such individual’ as restricted in
their connotation to mean only the male of the species, the court
observed that the evil which was sought to be remedied was the only
resulting from the widespread practice of husbands entering into
nominal partnerships with their wives, and fathers admitting their
minor children to the benefits of the partnerships of which they were
members. This evil was sought to be remedied by the Income-tax Act.
The only intention of the legislature in doing so was to include the
income derived by the wife or a minor child, in the computation of
the total income of the male assessee, the husband or the father as
the case may be for the purpose of the assessment
 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE MISCHIEF RULE
•
Opposed to the Golden or Literal rules. It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in
sentencing.It abides to parliament sovereignty and allows the law to develop and
adapt to changing needs. On the other hand , it must be appreciated that Heydon's
Case was the product of a time when statutes were a minor source of law, compared
to the common law. Drafting was by no means as exact a process as it is today, and
the supremacy of Parliament was not really established. It has certain disadvantages
too. 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
 Problems With The Mischief Rule
• There are certain drawbacks and reservations with respect to the
mischief rule.
• (a) Firstly , it creates a crime after the event eg (Smith v Hughes)thus
infringing the rule of law.
• (b) Secondly, it gives judge a law making role infringing the
separation of powers.
• (c) Thirdly, judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and
prejudices to a case (eg Smith v Hughes).
CONCLUSION