(B) MISCHIEF RULE OF

CONSTRUCTION

PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION
- PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE -

Subje Objec
ct t
History of the rule
The times that were…

Common Law
Statutory Law
 The importance of Interpretation in
Words carry
different
shades of
Context
meaning

Different
shades of
ambiguity
Statute to be
applied to
particular facts &
circumstances in
the light of suitable
context
 Regard to Subject and Object
“The words of a statute, when there is doubt about their
meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best
harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object
which the legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not
so much in a strict grammatical or etymological propriety of
language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the
occasion in which they are used, and the object to be attained.”
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Mischief Rule….A Flashback!!

The classic Heydon’s case (1584)

Mischief Rule

Purposive Construction
 The Mischief Rule Mantra

Suppress the Mischief &

Advance the Remedy
 The Heydon’s case (1584)
The first case on Mischief Rule
 Heydon’s case- Facts
A Religious college in This tenancy was
England had given granted by way of a
tenancy in the manor copyhold & was a
to a man and his son long-running lease

Subsequently, the manor

was also leased to a man
named ‘Heydon’ for a
period of 80 years

This rendered several A year later, the Parliament

rents severally for enacted the ‘Act of
several parcels of Dissolution’ declaring the
said lease void.
land.
The effect of the statute on the
leases that were created
●
The statute dissolved religious
1.) colleges and such leases that
were created were declared void.

●
But one particular provision in the statute which

2.) kept in force, for a term of life, any grants that

had been made “more than a year prior to the
date on which the statute had been enacted.”
 The Main issue before the Court
• Whether the copyhold estate of Ware and Ware,
which had been created for their lifetime, be
called ‘estate for a lifetime’ and thereby continue
to have legal validity…?

• It was unanimously decided that the lease granted

to Ware and Ware continued to have legal
validity; the lease made to Heydon was void as the
said lease clearly fell within the words and
meaning of the enacting statute.
 Lord Coke
• “to arrive at the real meaning, it is always
necessary to get an exact conception of the
aim, scope and object of the whole Act. And
for the sure and true interpretation of all
statutes in general, be they penal or
beneficial; restrictive or enlarging four
things are to be discerned and
considered…”
Cornerstone of the Mischief Rule- The
Four Questions
(1)What was the common law before making
of the Act,
(2)What was the mischief and defect for
which the common law did not provide,
(3)What is the remedy that the Parliament
had resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the Commonwealth, and
(4)What is the reason of the remedy?
Question Answer
What was the common The religious and ecclesiastical houses could make leases for
law before making of as many years as possible
the Act?

What was the mischief The mischief was that when the religious houses perceived the
and defect for possibility of a situation wherein their manors & houses
which the would be dissolved, they engaged in creation of long and
common law did unreasonable leases- such unreasonable leases- the common
not provide? law failed to provide for.

What is the remedy After the ‘Act of Dissolution’, such unreasonable leases would
that the be dissolved; and any estate or interest for life would be
Parliament had declared as null and void.
resolved and
appointed to cure
the disease of the
Commonwealth?
What is the reason of Main intent was preventing the doubling of estates.
the remedy? Simultaneous existence of estates for two lives at the same
time has to be stopped.
What is to be suppressed by the
court…??
Factors that
need to be
suppressed

Factors Factors
advancing adding to
mischief mischief

Factors Factors
continuing hiding
mischief mischief
 Therefore, the court arrived at a
conclusion
• When an Act of Parliament alters the service, tenure and
interest of the land in prejudice of the tenant, the general
words of an Act of Parliament shall not extent to estates
created by way of copyholds.

• But when an Act of Parliament is made for the good of

the general public itself, and no prejudice would accrue,
then such copyhold estates would be under the purview
of the Act.

***
 TRACING AND
TRACKING THE
JOURNEY OF THE
MISCHIEF RULE
 Macmillan v. Dent

• The rule then directs that the

courts must adopt that
construction which “shall
suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy”.
 Macmillan v. Dent
The Common
The Mischief Law

Rule envisages

Bound to look
at the Object &
Purpose

State of law at the

time of passing of
the Act
 Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of
Bihar
• The judges are to make such construction as shall
suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, and
to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for
continuance of the mischief and to add force and
life to the cure and remedy, according to the true
intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

• This principle is also known as the rule of

Purposive Construction.
 Smith v. Hughes

●
The prostitutes were soliciting
customers from the house
FACT ●
adjoining the street.
They were calling out to the men

S in the street from the balcony,

tapping the windows of the first
and second floor of the house.
 S.1(1) of the Street Offences Act, 1959

It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in

a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.
Whether in the circumstances the appellant was soliciting in a street or public place?

●
The provision does not
specifically say that the person
who is soliciting must be in the
Observations street.
●
It does not also say that the
person who receives solicitation
is in the street.
 The Court noted
• Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean
up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets
without being molested or solicited by common
prostitutes. Viewed in this way, it can matter little
whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or in
a doorway or in a balcony, or at a window; in each case
her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody
walking in the street. For my part I am content to base
my decision on that ground and that ground alone.
 Purpose should not be frustrated

Advances
Harmonizes the the remedy Object
subject of the statute
and object of the and Oriented
Legislature suppresses Approach
the mischief.
Limitations of the Mischief Rule
Cannot cause
violence to the
plain language of
the statute

No re-writing of
the section or
substituting the
words

Cannot be used
when no
uncertainty,
ambiguity or gaps
U.P.Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Braj
Kishore
U.P.Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Braj
Kishore
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 came for the purpose of
implementing the Bhoodan movement.

This movement aimed at distribution of land to landless

laborers who were versed in agriculture and who had
no means of subsistence.
 ‘Landless persons’

It was held that the expression ‘landless persons’ in S.14 was

limited to landless laborers as described above and did not include
landless businessman residing in a city.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v.
Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Construction of the term ‘any person’

Sec. 2(k) ●
“Industrial dispute means any
of the dispute or difference between
employers and employees or
Industria between employers and workmen,
or between workmen and workmen
l which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or
Disputes with the conditions of labour of any
person…”
Act, 1947
 Two crucial limitations to the
expression ‘any person’

Must be a real dispute

Capable of settlement or One party giving necessary

adjudication relief to the other
 K.Prabhakaran v. P.Jayarajan

Sec 8(3) of ●
‘A person convicted of any
the offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less
Represent than two years is disqualified
ation of for being chosen as and for
the People being a member of the
Legislature of a State.’
Act, 1951
 The Issue
• Is it necessary that the term of
imprisonment for not less than 2
years must be in respect of one
single offence to attract the
disqualification?
The Supreme Court decoding the object of
the statute

Actual Period of that a convict has to

Relevant for purpose of S.8(3)
Imprisonment undergo

He may be sentenced to
In a factual scenario different terms of imprisonment For different offences

Individually the term may be But collectively or

added together
It may exceed 2 years
less than 2 years
The court interpreting the word ‘any’
Actual period of
imprisonment is
necessary

‘any’ may be used to

indicate the quantity
such as ‘some’, ‘out of
many’, ‘an infinite
number’.

‘any’ may have ‘Any’ may mean all,

several meanings every, each, some or
according to context ‘one or many out of
& circumstances several’
 The Purpose of the provision

‘any’ used ●
The section uses ‘any’ as an adjective
qualifying the word ‘offence’ to
as an suggest not the number of offence but
adjective the nature of the offence.

Purpose of ●
To prevent criminalization of politics.
the ●
Those who break the law should not
make the law.
provision
 Reema Agarwal v. Anupam &
Others
• The appellant was admitted to the hospital for
consuming poison.
• She was married to the defendant Anupam;
was harassed by parents-in-law and brother-in-
law for dowry and was made to drink poison.
• She started vomiting and in unconscious state
admitted to the hospital.
• This was the second marriage for both the
parties.
 Reema Agarwal v. Anupam & Others

Whether offence under S.498-A & 304-B, IPC pre-suppose valid marriage between
the parties?

Marriage is a legal union

of a man and woman as Reference was made to Ss The language used in S.
H and W and cannot 5(i), 11 and 16 of HMA, 498-A is “husband or
extend to a legally void 1955. relative of the husband”.
marriage.
 The Issue

• Can a person who enters into a marital

arrangement be allowed to take a shelter
behind a smokescreen to contend that
since there was no valid marriage the
question of dowry does not arise?
 Meaning of ‘husband’ u/s 498-A, IPC

Section 2 of the ●
Any property or valuable security given or “agreed to be
given” either directly or indirectly by one party to the
Dowry marriage to the other party to the marriage “at or before or
after the marriage” as a “consideration” for the marriage.
Prohibition Act

The purpose ●
The purpose for which Ss 498A and
behind the IPC 304B IPC and 113B of the IEA were
provisions introduced cannot be lost sight of.

To prevent harassment to a woman who

The obvious
●

enters into a marital relationship from

social objective becoming a victim of the greed for money.
Restricted Meaning would not
further legislative intent
Legislations
with public
policy

Destroy the
Legalistic purpose
Niceties

Cannot
Hyper-technical
interpret
approach
pedantically

Hairsplitting
legalistic approach
to be avoided
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. UOI
AIR 1957 SC 628
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. UOI
AIR 1957 SC 628

Petitioners engaged in promoting

and conducting ‘prize
competitions’ in different States of
India
Provisions of the Prize Competition Act, 1956 are challenged by the petitioners

The ●
“to provide for the
Object CONTROL
REGULATION
and
of
of the prize competitions”,
involving gambling.
Act
 Sec 2(d) of the Act defines “Prize Competition”

• “any competition” (whether called a cross

word prize competition, missing-word or
picture prize competition or by any other
name), in which prizes are offered for the
solution of any puzzle based upon the
building-up, arrangement, combination
or permutation of letters, words or
figures.”
Prize Competition
- A Floating Casino in Goa -
 The Main Issue
Whether in view
of the definition
u/s. 2(d), the Act
applies to
competitions
which involve
substantial skill
and are not in
the nature of
gambling.
The Legal Brains behind the arguments

Petitioners Respondents
 CONTENTIONS
Petitioners Respondents
(i) Prize Competition (i) ‘Prize Competition means
include competitions in and includes only
which success depends competitions in which
upon chance and success does not depend
upon any substantial
substantial degree of
degree or skill and are
skill.
essentially gambling in
(ii) The Act encroaches upon their character;
the right to carry on (ii) Gambling Activities are not
trade and is violative of trade or business w/in the
Art.19(1)(g). meaning of Art. 19(1)(g).
 CONTENTIONS
Petitioners Respondents
(iii) The impugned law (iii) The reasonable
constituted a single restrictions u/Art 19(6) are
inseparable enactment and protected and that would
so it must fail in its not affect the validity of
entirety in respect of both the enactment as regards
classes of competitions. the competitions which are
in the nature of gambling.
The Act is severable in its
application.
 Observations of the Court
Art 19(1)(g) and
301 protect lawful
‘Gambling’
trading activities is not lawful

It is res extra
commercium

Therefore, ‘gambling’
does not fall within
the purview of such
Articles
 Observations of the Court
Competitions involving
To ascertain the intent, the
substantial skill,
court has to find outare
from the
business activities
word s actually which
u sed i.e. literal
rule protected
are be given prima facie
by Art.19(1)
preference.
(g).

Whe
n
liter
al
rule
is
leadi
ng to
a
diffe
rent
inten
tion,
then
to
arriv
e at
the
real
mea
ning.
Ther
eafte
r,
look
into
exact
conc
eptio
n of
the
aim,
scop
e
and
obje
ct of
the
whol
e
Act.
The state of affairs in the erstwhile British
India
 History, Purpose, Mischief
‘Bombay Lotteries Object of controlling and
and Prize taxing lotteries and prize
Competitions (Control competitions within the
and Tax) Act’, 1948 province of Bombay

To avoid the taxing

provisions, people shifted
the venue of their activities
to the neighboring states
like Mysore etc.

Parliament enacted the

Central Legislation for
the control and regulation
of Prize Competitions.
 Therefore…

Control &
Regulate Prize Only to be
competit Compe regulated
ions of a titions & not
gamblin involvi controlled
g ng
characte skills
r
 Decision

Object & History of Severable Provisions Therefore…

the Act The provisions The Act was
The competitions are passed with an
which are sought to SEVERABLE in avowed object
be controlled and
regulated by the
their application of controlling
Act are the ones of to competitions and regulating
GAMBLING in in the nature of the gambling
character. gambling. activities.
 PURPOSIVE
CONSTRUCTION
 The onset of Purposive Construction
Heydon’s case (1584) Origin of Mischief Rule
In Re, Mayfair Property Co.(1898)
Heydon referred

Eastman Photographic Materials Co., (1898) the rule was

further re-affirmed as follows:
“My lords, it appears to me that to construe the Statute in question,
it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the
former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had
given rise, and to the later Act which provides the remedy.”
Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. Comptroller
General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

Lord Reid in this case stated that “the word

mischief is traditional”.
…which
Thethe
unsatisfac
The …when
facts Parliame
tory state
known
theto
Bill nt is
of affairs
Parliame
came supposed
disclosed
nt
before itto have
by these
intended
facts
to remedy
 Superior Purpose
• When two competing Acts construed to
further the purposes behind them produce a
conflict, the court may resolve a conflict by
taking into consideration as to which Act
represents “the superior purpose” in addition
to other relevant factors.
Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank
Purposive Construction
 CIT v. Sodra Devi
AIR 1957 SC 832

Sodra Devi

Included the minors into

Entered into
the benefits of
Adult
partnership Adult
with her Adult Minor Minor Minor
partnership
Child: Child : 2
major1 children Child : 3 Child: 1 Child: 2 Child: 3
 Sec. 16(3) of the Act
In computing the total income of any individual for the
purpose of assessment, there shall be included-
(a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such
individual as arises directly or indirectly:
(i) from the membership of the wife in a firm of which her
husband is a partner;
(ii) from the admission of the minor to the benefits of the
partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner;
(iii) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by
the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in
connection with an agreement to live apart; or …..
 Issues

●
Whether the word ‘individual’ in
S.16(3) of the Indian Income-Tax
1.) Act, 1922 (amended in 1937),
includes a female.

●
Whether the income of minor sons from a
partnership, to the benefits of which they

2.) were admitted, was liable to be included in

computing the total income of the mother who
was a member of the partnership.
 Meaning of ‘any individual’
Male when
in
juxtapositio
n with wife
Contention of the
Appellant
‘Revenue’

Male &
female both
when in
juxtapositio
n with child
Individual
may mean both
male & female
of the human
specie
 Meaning of ‘any individual’
Respondents (Assessee)
• The word “individual” is not used in its
generic sense but is used in a restricted and
narrower sense and means only a male is
capable of having a wife or minor child or
both, and that individual can only be a male
of the species and not a female.
 The court examining the
background of the provision
 Majority Judgment
The only intention of the Legislature by
putting the words “any individual”
could only have been meant as
restricted to the male and not including
the female of the species.

Ther
efor
e,
the
wor
ds
“ind
ivid
ual”
in
S.16
(3)
and
S.16
(3)
(a)
of
the
Act
are
restr
icted
in
their
conn
otati
on
to
mea
n
only
the
male
of
the
spec
ies.
 AIR Karmachari Sangh v. AIR Ltd.
AIR 1988 SC 1325

●
The appellants were the
FACTS employees of the, AIR Ltd.

Cen. Govt. ●
To make recommendations in
respect of fixing or revising wages or
constituted working and non-working
Tribunals journalists.
 Respondents objected to the Awards

They were not running a newspaper

establishment
and
 Publications published by the company
were not the newspapers .
 Issue

• Whether the law reports published by

the respondent are newspapers within
the meaning of the Act and whether the
employees engaged in production or
publication of the said law reports are
entitled to the benefits of the Award?
 Examining the definitions

‘Newspaper’ ●
Printed periodical work containing public news or

defined u/s comments on public news and includes such other

class of printed periodical work as may, from time
to time be notified by the Central Government.
2(b) of the Act

‘Newspaper
Any working journalist and includes any
employee’ is
●

other person employed to do day to day

work in, or in relation to, any newspaper
defined by establishment.

S2(c)
 Gap existed…!!!
Newsp
aper
defined

Newspap
er
employee
defined

But ‘News’
not defined
in the Act!!!
Observations & Decision of the Court
News not Oxford Dictionary
defines news as tidings,
defined in the new information of
Act recent events etc

The contents of these law

reports constitute news
insofar as the subscribers
& readers are concerned

Publication of It may after sometime

cease to be a newspaper
recent judgments and become a book of
is news reference
Decision of the Court
Beneficent
Legislation

Therefore, the said law Enacted for the

reports are newspapers purpose of improving
and employees receive conditions of
the benefit employees

If 2 opinions possible,
In favour of the
the one advancing the
persons for whom the
remedy should be
law has been passed
employed
Limits to the Heydon’s rule
Ambiguity due
to more than
one meaning
Wide ordinary meaning
cannot be confined to
remedy the single
identified mischief

Words must be
read in the context
of the statute

Use of this rule

should not lead
to absurd results
The length of applying the Rule…

 If there were many problems before the

enactment of the statute it does not follow that
in an effort to solve some of them the
Parliament intended to solve all
 Limits to the Heydon’s rule

• After the words construed in their context

and found that the language is capable of
bearing only one construction, the rule in
Heydon’s case ceases to be controlling and
gives way to plain meaning rule.
***