MISCHIEF RULE

QUESTIONS
How is this rule different from other rules?

What is the significance of the term ‘mischief’?

On what kind of legislations does it primarily apply?

Do we still follow this rule of interpretation?

Does it have any relation with purposive rule of interpretation?

Does the application of this rule encroach the legislative domain?

 ANSWERS
More flexible than other rules; moves beyond the four corners of the statute
Term ‘mischief ’ relates to problem/ menace prevailing in society which needs to
controlled/regulated/curbed…
Primarily applicable of special legislations made to curb a particular problem. For ex, NDPS,
PMLA, PCA etc. but they do apply in other cases too, if required
Mischief rule is a precursor to purposive rule of interpretation which we largely apply in all types
of legislations today
The MR is conceptually similar to the Purposive rule and both interpret according to the
purpose & object of law
It can encroach the legislative domain if interpretation is inconsistent or goes beyond the scope
of law as it does give more discretion in the hands of the Judge
 CONCEPT
Emphasis is on finding the mischief (problem) prevailing in society for which the
law was made
The court has to then note the remedy provided in the present law to curb the
problem
The Judge while applying mischief rule will always attempt to:

Suppress the Mischief

and
Advance the Remedy
 Heydon’s Case (1584)
First and the most landmark case on the rule wherein it was propounded
Ottery religious college gave copyhold rights (to be held for a tenure) tenancies in a manor (piece
of land)
So in a parcel of land, one part was given to a man named Ware and to his son for life. And other
parts in the parcel was held by other tenants at will.

WARE &
Son
 Heydon’s Case (Contd.)
This tenancy was held subject to the will of the lord and custom prevalent in that manor
By way of a deed, the parcel of land which was held by Ware & his son was leased to Heydon in
around 1534
This lease was for 80 years for rent as per traditional and customary value of parcel
In 1535- Legislation named Suppression of religious Houses Act was enacted
The legislation dissolved the religious houses including Ottery religious college
The possessions of the college were all surrendered to Henry VIII due to the enactment
By that law, the tenancies created within one year of legislation were all held void
However, tenancies created beyond one year were saved [Tenancy of Ware was saved due to this
exception]
 Provision for reference
That if any abbot, etc. or other religious and ecclesiastical house or place, within one year next
before the first day of this present Parliament, hath made, or hereafter shall make any lease or grant
for life, or for term of years, of any manors, messuages, lands, etc. and in the which any estate or
interest for life, year or years, at the time of the making of such grant or lease, then had his being or
continuance, or hereafter shall have his being or continuance, and not determined at the making of
such lease, etc. Or if the usual and old rents and farms accustomed to be yielding and reserved by the
space of twenty years next before the first day of this present Parliament, is not, or be not, or
hereafter shall not be thereupon reserved or yielded, etc. that all and every such lease, etc. shall be
utterly void
 Heydon’s Claim
Heydon’s tenement was held void as it was created within an year of legislation

Heydon contended his is a ‘copyhold’ tenancy while prohibition is on ‘leasehold’ tenancies.

So, his land does not fall in ambit of law. It should not be declared void.

Court needed to resolve the ambiguity as the law did not use the term ‘copyhold’ but the
interpretation was to be made to serve the purpose of law

Court propounded 4 principles to be considered while interpreting any law

 Principle of law[Heydon’s Case]
1. What was the common law before the making of the Act

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

3. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the commonwealth.

4. The true reason of the remedy

 Explanation of principle
Court then has to make a construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy,
Also, to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief
The possible interpretations which are made due to lacunae/loopholes in law were to be
prevented
Court will find out:
1. The mischief by going back in time to find what was the menace prevailing in society;
2. How the existing law was insufficient to deal with the said menace;
3. The remedy brought about in the present law to deal with the menace (mischief)
4. Knowing the very reason for choosing this remedy and not anything else
 Mischief & Purpose of law
•Religious and ecclesiastical persons made leases for as many years as they pleased and the mischief
was that when they perceived their houses would be dissolved, they made long and unreasonable
leases.

•It was not necessary for them to make a new lease so long as a former had continuance;

•Therefore the intent of the Act was to avoid doubling of estates, and to have but one single estate
in being at a time: for doubling of estates implies in itself deceit.
 Application of principle
 Therefore, if the copyhold estate for two lives [Ware and his son], and the lease [to Heydon] for
eighty years shall stand together, here will be doubling of estates which will be against the true
meaning of Parliament.

The remedy was to dissolve such tenancies by declaring them to be void. The lacunae of not
using the term ‘copyhold’ will not allow the appellant to evade from the intent of law

The Court here sought to suppress the mischief by declaring void the transfer made by way of
copyhold. Held that ‘leasehold’ is to be inclusive of ‘copyhold’ transfers.
 Other Cases
oSmith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830

oRMDC v. UOI [1957 SCR 930]

oC.I.T., M.P. and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi [AIR1957SC 832]