![ Mischief rule - This rule attempts to determine the
legislator's intention.
Originating from a 16th century case in the United
Kingdom, its main aim 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. Smith vs. Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rulesofstatutaryinterpretation-converted1-190305084748/85/Rules-of-statutary-interpretation-PPT-By-Rajashree-J-Jawale-9-320.jpg)
Rules of statutary interpretation PPT By Rajashree J Jawale
- 1. BY RAJASHREE J JAWALE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ISMAILSAHEB MULLA LAW COLLEGE SATARA
- 2. Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases. Interpretation is necessary when case involves suble or ambiguous aspects of a statute. Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in some cases, there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. The reason for ambiguity or vagueness of a legislation is the fundamental nature of language. It is not always possible to precisely transform the intention of the legislature into written words.
- 3. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.
- 4. Literal Rule (aka PlainMeaning Rule) - It means that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. In other words, the law must be read, word for word, and it should not divert from its true meaning.
- 5. According to this rule, when a word does not contain any definition in a statute, it must be given its plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. If the word is clear, it must be applied, even though the intention of the legislature may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law means.
- 6. In J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan 2003, SC observed that the intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition, substitution, or removal of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. This is accordance with the case of Crawford vs Spooner, 1846, where privy council noted that the courts cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, they cannot add or mend, and by construction.
- 7. In M V Joshi vsM V Shimpi, AIR 1961, relating to Food and Adulteration Act, it was contented that the act does not apply to butter made from curd. However, SC held that the word butter in the said act is plain and clear and there is no need to interpret it differently. Butter is butter whether made from milk or curd.
- 8. A statues often contains a "definitions" section, which explicitly defines the most important terms used in that statute. However, some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or fail to define a particular term. The literal rule, which is also known as the plain meaning rule, attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.
- 9. Mischief rule - This rule attempts to determine the legislator's intention. Originating from a 16th century case in the United Kingdom, its main aim 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. Smith vs. Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859
- 10. The rule was further illustrated in the case of Smith v Hughes, 1960, where under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the "street." The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.
- 11. This rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in that it can only be used to interpret a statute and only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the common law. This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which the literal rule cannot be applied.
- 12. The Mischief Rule is used by judges in statutory interpretation in order to discover legislature's intention. It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the "mischief" that the previous or existing law did not cover and this act covers.
- 13. The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent. Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes
- 14. This rule was developed by Lord Coke in Sir John Heydon's Case, 1584, where it was stated that there were four points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute: 1. What was the common law before the making of the act? 2. What was the "mischief or 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. What is the true reason of the remedy?
- 15. Golden rule - It is a compromise between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule. Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the judge can depart from this meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning. If the word only has one meaning, and applying this meaning would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a completely different meaning.
- 16. This rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the overall content of the document demands it. This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result.
- 17. The rule was evolved by Parke B (who later became Lord Wensleydale) in Becke v Smith, 1836 and in Grey v Pearson, 1857, who stated, "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther."
- 18. It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience.
- 19. The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Bedford vs Bedford, 1935, is another interesting case that highlighted the use of this rule.
- 20. It concerned a case where a son murdered his mother and committed suicide. The courts were required to rule on who then inherited the estate, the mother's family, or the son's descendants. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting. The court held that if the son inherits the estate that would amount to profiting from a crime and that would be repugnant to the act.
- 21. Interpreting a statute to determine whether it applies to a given set of facts often boils down to analyzing whether a single word or short phrase covers some element of the factual situation before the judge.
- 22. Thus, the Golden rule implies that if a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd result then the meaning of the words should be so construed so as to lead to the avoidance of such absurdity. A further corollary to this rule is that in case there are multiple constructions to effect the Golden rule the one which favors the assessee should always be taken. This rule is also known as the Rule of Reasonable Construction.
- 23. Rule of Harmonious Construction - when there are two provisions in a statute, which are in conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and the construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. Bengal immunity Co. vs. State of Bihar (1955) 6 STC 446 (SC).
- 24. Noscitur a sociis -When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
- 25. Reddendo Singula Singulis -When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last word, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a hospital. Here,"in a hospital" only applies to doctors and not to firemen or policemen.
- 27. Ejusdem Generis -When a list of two or more specific descriptors are followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them e.g. vehicles in "cars,motor bikes,motor powered vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense and therefore cannot be interpreted as including air planes.
- 28. THANKS