Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

INTERPRETATION OF STATUES-UNRAVELLING THE

MISCHIEF RULE

Anisha Agrawal, Amity University, Rajasthan

Aanchal Rana, Amity University, Rajasthan

ABSTRACT

Interpreting statutes is a foundational component of legal practice and the study

of legal jurisprudence. It entails the process of unravelling the intended
meanings of laws, statutes, and regulations, often necessitating the utilization of
specific guidelines for interpretation. One such guideline, the mischief rule, has
attracted significant attention due to its distinctive historical background and
relevance in the contemporary arena. This research paper delves into the realm
of interpretation principles, with a focus on the mischief rule. It seeks to
investigate the rule's origins, practical application, strengths, criticisms, and
comparison with other rules of interpretation. Through an examination of case
law, legislative intent, and scholarly discourse, the paper endeavours to offer a
comprehensive insight into the depth of the mischief rule in matters related to
the elements, criticism, and application of the mischief rule. In order to uphold
uniformity, equity and conscience in legal judgments, multiple guidelines for
interpretation have been laid over the years. Among these principles, the
mischief rule stands apart due to its historical roots and its continuous
significance and applicability in contemporary legal frameworks. This research
paper seeks to investigate the various methods of interpretation, with a particular
emphasis on the mischief rule.

Keywords: Interpretation, legal, unravelling, mischief, legislative, principles.

Page: 2276
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

INTRODUCTION:

In legal practice and jurisprudence, the skill of interpreting statutes is a fundamental and
indispensable element. This practice involves the intricate task of unravelling the meanings and
intentions embedded within the complex tapestry of laws, statutes, and regulations that constitute
the backbone of any legal system. It is based on the art of mindfully making sense of the written
text by the legislature. In other words, it means understanding with what intent a law is so that its
effective and efficient application can be done.

The pursuit of justice and fairness often necessitates the application of specific principles and
guidelines designed to offer clarity to legal practitioners and courts. One such principle, the
mischief rule, has captured the attention of legal scholars, practitioners, and jurists alike. It
distinguishes itself not only through its unique historical origins but also through its enduring
relevance in the intricate legal systems of today. It represents a fascinating confluence of the past
and the present, where the accumulated wisdom of previous eras informs the decision-making
processes of today's legal landscape.

Among the various rules of interpretation, this research paper mainly focuses on the mischief rule.
As the name itself suggests, “mischief” is related to finding of problems and issues in the statutes
and solving them in a way so that justice can be administered. The objective is to provide a holistic
and nuanced comprehension of the pivotal role played by the mischief rule in modern legal
systems.

Also, as we venture into this exploration, it becomes evident that the rules of interpretation are not
abstract legal constructs but rather essential instruments that ensure adherence to the rule of law,
the preservation of justice, and the integrity of legal systems. The rules of interpretation act as the
conduit that connects the textual content of the law with the real-world issues that the law seeks to
address. They represent the means through which the intentions of lawmakers, the lessons of
history, and the exigencies of the contemporary world converge.

In this context, the mischief rule, with its rich historical heritage and its adaptability to the
multifaceted legal challenges of today, encapsulates the dynamic nature of statutory interpretation.
By delving into the intricacies of this rule, we embark on a journey that not only unveils the

Page: 2277
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

complexities of legal interpretation but also illuminates the enduring wisdom of legal traditions
from the past and their profound influence on the present.

RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION:

Statutory interpretation constitutes a vital aspect of legal practice, involving the intricate process
of ascertaining the meaning and intent embedded within laws, statutes, and regulations. Given the
intricate nature of legislative texts, which can be fraught with complexities and open to multiple
interpretations, various rules have evolved over time to guide this process. These rules provide a
structured framework for comprehending and applying statutes. Here, we will provide a detailed
exploration of some of the principal rules of statutory interpretation:

1. Literal Rule:

The literal rule, also referred to as the plain meaning rule, advocates that statutes should be
construed based on their straightforward and ordinary definitions.

If language of the statute is plain. The only duty of the court is to give effect to it and has no
business to look into the consequences of it. The court is under the obligation to interpret and apply
the law as it exists and leave the remedy of it in the hands of legislature if harsh conclusions result
from exposition. This rule is also known as plain meaning rule.

Case law: Ranjit Udeshi V State of Maharashtra

The bookstore owner Ranjith Udeshi was caught with the possession and selling of the obscene
material and was charged under section 292 of IPC. The court held that the literal meaning of the
law will be applied and Ranjit to be convicted for the same.

2. Golden Rule:

It is the interpretation that allows the judge to depart from the words normal meaning in order to
eliminate any absurd result. The word use in enactment should be interpreted in its natural, literal,
grammatical and ordinary meaning only if the words are plain, clear and unambiguous but if the

Page: 2278
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

meaning results in absurdity, inconvenience, hardship or injustice, the court have the power to
modify the meaning of the statute to the extent of absurdity.

Case law: State of Punjab versus Qaiser Jehan Begum

In this case, the interpretation of section 18 of the limitation act was done and it was held that the
limitation period for section 18 would start from the date parties got the information of sin and not
on the date on which the compensation was awarded.

3. Mischief Rule:

The mischief rule, also known as the Heydon's Case rule, centres on the identification of the
"mischief" or problem that the statute seeks to rectify.

This approach entails examining the legal landscape prior to the statute's enactment, pinpointing
the issue or mischief, and construing the statute in a manner that addresses this problem.

Its main aim is to determine the mischief and defect that the statute in question and set out to
remedy.

Case Law: Alamgir Versus State of Bihar

In this case, the court held that the word “detain” shall be used as purposive interpretation rather
than a literal one.

4. Contextual Interpretation:

Contextual interpretation entails a comprehensive analysis not only of the specific provision in
question but also of the adjacent provisions, the statute in its entirety, and the broader legal
framework.

The objective is to ensure that the interpretation is consistent with the statute's structure and
legislative intent.

Page: 2279
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

5. Ejusdem Generis:

This rule comes into play when a general term or phrase follows a list of specific terms or phrases
within a statute. It implies that the general term should be understood in a manner consistent with
the specific terms listed.

For instance, if a statute mentions "cars, buses, and other vehicles," the term "other vehicles" would
be interpreted narrowly to encompass only similar modes of transportation.

Case law: Uttar Pradesh State electricity board V Hari Shankar

This case set down five essential elements of this rule-

• the statute contains an enumeration of specific word.

• the subjects of enumeration constitute a class or a category

• that class or category must not be exhausted by the enumeration

• the general terms follow the enumeration

• there is no indication of a different legislative intent.

6. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius:

This Latin maxim signifies "the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another."

It suggests that when a statute explicitly enumerates particular items or conditions, those are the
exclusive items or conditions intended to be covered.

For instance, if a statute refers to bus and truck, it only refers to bus and trucks and will not include
car or any other transportation.

7. Maxims and Canons:

Page: 2280
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Legal maxims and canons, such as "noscitur a sociis" (a word is known by the company it keeps)
or "in pari materia" (statutes addressing the same subject matter should be construed together),
provide additional guiding principles for interpretation.

These rules of statutory interpretation serve as indispensable tools for legal professionals and
courts in resolving ambiguities and arriving at sound legal decisions. The choice of which rule to
apply often hinges on the specific circumstances and the overarching objective of achieving an
interpretation that is just and equitable under the law.

The Mischief Rule: Concept and Origins

The Mischief Rule, famously linked to the precedent-setting Heydon's Case of 1584, represents a
crucial element of statutory interpretation. It serves as a pivotal tool for discerning legislative intent
by directing attention to the issues or "mischief" that a statute was intended to resolve.

It is the rule of purpose of construction because the purpose of this statute is more important. While
applying this rule it is also known as heightens rule because it was given by the Lord poop in
Heydon’s case in 1584. It is called the mischief rule because the focus of this rule is curing the
mischief and effect of the case.

Its main aim is to determine any mischief and defect within the case and to set out a remedy so
that it can be suppressed and an effective remedy can be implemented by the court.

Historical Context and Emergence:

The Mischief Rule has its origins in the legal landscape of medieval England, notably within the
framework of Heydon's Case. This case centred around a dispute concerning the interpretation of
a statute that conferred certain powers upon the city of London. To address the ambiguity in the
statute's language, the court adopted an approach that sought to grasp the problem or "mischief"
the statute was designed to rectify.

Principles Inherent to the Mischief Rule:

The Mischief Rule, shaped by the principles originating from Heydon's Case, encompasses several

Page: 2281
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

critical concepts:

• What was the common law before the making of the act?

This principle underscores the necessity of considering the state of the law as it existed
before the statute came into effect. It serves the purpose of identifying the specific issue or
deficiency that the statute aims to address.

• What was the mischief or defect for which the common law did not provide?

This principle accentuates the importance of pinpointing the exact problem or "mischief"
that the statute was intended to resolve. By understanding the deficiency in the pre-existing
legal framework, one can better appreciate the statute's purpose.

• What remedy the Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease?

This principle directs attention to the solutions that the legislature sought to implement
through the statute. It entails an examination of the statutory provisions to determine how
they were designed to tackle the identified mischief.

• What is the true reason for the remedy?

This principle encourages a deeper exploration of the legislative intent that underpins the
statute. It aims to unearth the fundamental policy or reasoning that drove the legislative
changes.

Instead of being constrained by the literal and golden standards of interpretation, this rule gives
judges greater flexibility in evaluating the lawmakers' intentions.

ELEMENTS OF MISCHIEF RULE

1.Identify the Mischief: The first and the foremost element is identifying the mischief or the
problem. To ascertain what problems the law was intended to address this usually entails looking
at the status of the law before to the law’s enactment.

Page: 2282
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

2.Determine the remedy: Once the mischief has been identified the court needs to examine how
the statue was intended to rectify the issue. This entails viewing the statues individual provisions
and comprehending it intend in light of the noted misconduct.

3.Considering the remedy, interpret the statue: The mischief rule core criteria are that the court
must read the law in a way that expands the goal of legislature in creating the remedy. To
accomplish the desired remedy this entails interpreting statues text broadly and purposefully even
if it deviates from its core meaning.

4.Avoid narrow or strict literalism: If applying the mischief rule will contradict the intent of the
legislature, judges are advised to refrain from taking a statue too literally.

5.Balancing Act: Judges applying the mischief rule must seek a compromise between upholding
statues plain meaning and honouring the legislative intent.

6.Historical background: To properly and adequately apply the mischief rule one must comprehend
the historical background and the legal landscape at the time the Act was passed. It aids in
determining the issues and desired fix.

APPLICATION FOR MISCHIEF RULE

Historical Precedents

The Mischief Rule boasts a rich history of practical application in the realm of law. Historical
cases where the Mischief Rule was brought into play have played a pivotal role in moulding the
guiding principles and methodologies associated with this rule. A scrutiny of these cases provides
insights into the evolution of this rule over time and its utility in resolving legal disputes. It also
helps in understanding the practical application of this rule in the real-life cases.

1. SMITH V. HUGHES:

This is a very famous case in London and is also known as a soliciting case.

The facts of the case were:

Page: 2283
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

• The prostitutes in the area used to call their clients from public roads which led to the
destruction of peace and harmony in that society.

• So, for this the Street Offences Act, 1959 was enforced to put a halt to the situation. Section
1(1) of the act states that the prostitute cannot solicit in public places for the purpose of
prostitution.

• Due to this the prostitutes started soliciting their clients from balconies and windows of
their own houses.

• It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the balcony was not in the street within
the meaning of section 1 of the Street Offences Act, 1959

The court applied the mischief rule to determine that the purpose of the law was to prevent the
solicitation of prostitutes from the public route so the court held that even if the prostitutes were
behind closed windows or balconies and were not on the street, they were visible from the public
roots and the statute still applied as the word balcony and window was taken to be an extension of
the word Street of the act.

2. RANJIT UDESHI V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA:

The facts of the case were:

• The appellant Ranjit Udeshi was found selling obscene material. He was convicted under
section 292 of IPC for selling an obscene book. The sale of which was already banned by
the government of India.

• The appellant contended that mens rea was not present which is very important to prove
the conviction under criminal law.

While applying the Mischief Rule, the Supreme Court held that the knowledge of obscenity was
not an essential element for an offence under section 292 IPC, 1860. Hence, the appeal was
dismissed.

Page: 2284
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

3. ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

SOCIAL SECURITY:

The facts of the case were

• Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act is 1967 states that any abortion carried on by medical
practitioners will not be considered as an offence.

• When the 1967 act was passed, abortion could only be carried out surgically by doctors but
now it has become possible for abortion to be carried out with hormonal drugs which can be
administered by the nurse also.

• So, the government sent out a circular that nurses could lawfully carry out such a procedure
under the supervision of a doctor

• The Royal College of Nursing contended that the circular was incorrect and it is unlawful
for nurses to carry out the abortion process.

• The issue here arises whether a nurse is authorised to perform hormonal abortion or not.

Applying the Mischief Rule, the court held that, since the intent of the 1967 Act was to broaden
the grounds on which abortions might be lawfully obtained as part of ordinary medical care, nurses
participating in hormonal abortion were protected under the Act, i.e., it lawful for nurses to carry
out drug-based (Hormonal) abortion procedures under the medical practitioner’s supervision.

4. CORKERY V. CARPENTER:

This case is also known as the drunk and ride case. The facts of the case are as follows:

The defendant was found riding his bicycle while he was under the influence of alcohol and section
12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, clearly states that it is an offence to be drunk in charge of a carriage
on the highway.

While applying the mischief rule, the court held that the person would be held liable as he

Page: 2285
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

represented a danger to himself and other users on the road, while driving under the influence of
alcohol and the carriage word was interpreted and extended and covered the bicycle in it.

5. PEPPER (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) V. HART (1993):

This particular case stands out for its examination of legislative intent through the utilization of
external aids, including parliamentary debates, in the application of the Mischief Rule. It marked
a significant milestone in employing parliamentary materials to ascertain legislative purpose.

6. KANWAR SINGH V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:

The high court held that abandoned doesn’t mean that the animals are ownerless or have no owner.
It means that animals are roaming anywhere without any condition or supervision.

Strengths and Criticisms

A comprehensive exploration of the Mischief Rule necessitates a consideration of both its merits
and demerits. Grasping these facets provides a well-rounded perspective on the utility and
limitations of the rule.

Strengths of the Mischief Rule include:

Adaptability: Foremost among its strengths is its adaptability to evolving societal norms and
legislative goals. This adaptability permits a flexible approach to addressing contemporary
challenges that may not have been foreseen by lawmakers.

Justice and Equity: The Mischief Rule's focus on rectifying legislative "mischief" promotes
principles of justice and equity by addressing legal gaps or injustices.

Criticisms and Limitations encompass:

Subjectivity: Critics contend that the Mischief Rule introduces subjectivity into the interpretation
process, as judges are tasked with defining what constitutes legislative "mischief" and how it
should be addressed.

Page: 2286
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume V Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Potential for Judicial Activism: Concerns exist that the rule might grant judges excessive
discretion, potentially leading to judicial activism and decisions influenced by personal beliefs
rather than legislative intent

CONCLUSION

A key component of legal practice is the interpretation of statutes, and the Mischief Rule is one of
the most well-known techniques employed in this regard. Considering that the Mischief rule of
interpretation contributes to the distance between the legal system and the legislative branch is not
exaggerating the case. In comparison to the Golden or Literal rules, it provides a much more
satisfying explanation of acts in some cases. Usually, it prevents absurd or unfair sentence
outcomes. This rule of interpretation has a lot of potential, but to avoid going too far, the courts
must respect its limitations during its application.

It is claimed to be undemocratic since it provides the unelected judges an excessive amount of

authority. The legislation may become ambiguous and prone to a slippery slope as a result of the
oversight.

The Mischief Rule must be administered carefully as the legal environment and societal values
change. Future research should concentrate on enhancing its application and resolving its
shortcomings to make it more successful and consistent with the rule's basic ideas.

In conclusion, the Mischief Rule remains a useful and applicable technique for interpreting
statutes, and future research and use of it will continue to influence the legal profession.

Page: 2287