Mischief Rule or Heydon’s Rule
According to this rule, when we interpret statutes, we need to consider some facts:
- what was the rule pertaining to the subject matter before the current statute was made
- what was the mischief or wrong that the common law did not cover till then, so that need for a special law was felt
- the solution established by the new statute and the motive behind it. These principles were established by Lord Coke in the famous case of Sir John Heydon, hence also known as Heydon’s Rule.
It was decided that when the literal meaning of the words of a statute is obscured, then seeking the mischief which the act seeks to correct or mitigate would help in its interpretation.
Rule of Harmonious Construction
This rule of interpretation means that any section or part of a statute should be read with reference to the entire act, i.e. the meaning should be construed in entirety, not singularly. If while constructing the meaning of a section, it conflicts with the meaning given in another, in all probability there is an error in interpretation.
Hence, if two sections in the same statute seen to give different meanings or lead to opposite directions, the interpretation should be such as can accommodate both meanings.
Title of the Act
There can be a long title and a short title. The long title can be used for understanding the context and brief description of the act, but the short title performs neither of these functions.
For example, the Foreign Exchange Management Act gives us an idea that it contains rules about foreign earnings and currency, but FEMA does not give us any idea unless we already know what the acronym stands for.
Learn and Read More CS Executive JIGL Question and Answers
Marginal notes
Marginal notes are additional notes provided to the Articles in the Constitution. These are generally resorted to only when the meaning of the Articles is unclear, as these are not used for restricting the provisions of the Articles.
These have generally been seen as being a part of the Constitution. It should be taken care of that the marginal notes should not be allowed to supersede the Articles though.
Preamble
The preamble specifies the intention behind the making of the act, i.e. what is the mischief that the makers of the act sought to correct. It can be one of the key starting points when we begin to understand a statute.
Chapter heads
Chapter heads or separate headings separating the act into parts:
This helps dividing the act into smaller parts, which are logically and sequential linked to enhance comprehension. Especially if we need to refer to a particular part, and not the whole of the act, these help us in getting to the right portion without losing valuable time.
Interpretative clauses
These may be portions where definitions or clarifications regarding the inclusions in sections or definitions of words have been given, as used in the statute. These can be inclusive or exhaustive definitions.
Proviso to a section
This gives the treatment of exceptional cases; those which can be called as qualifications, as they are to be treated in a different manner. It is generally in a very language, and without any ambiguity. It has to be kept in mind though, that it provides the exception to that particular section and cannot be applied as a common rule.
Examples, illustrations or explanations
If within the coverage of the provision of the section they relate to, they can be treated as valuable aids to interpretation, as they simplify the application of the section. They cannot, in any case, be seen as making any extra provisions not mentioned in the section itself.
Schedules
These are there in relation to the act itself as they provide the information mentioned in some part of the act in greater detail, which aids application of the section. They help in making the main ACT concise and provide a well-organized way of presenting the statute. For example, the XIII Schedule of the Companies Act, 1956.
External or peripheral aids
The external or peripheral aids to interpretation are generally used when the statute is vague or indistinct in meaning. Here, the inner means of interpretation would not serve the purpose and some external means, e.g. the circumstances that prevailed at the time of making of the statute are needed.
Descriptive Questions
Question 1 What are the presumptions in the interpretation of statutes when the intention of the legislature is not clear?
Answer:
The presumptions in the interpretation of statutes when the intention of the legislature is not clear
Presumptions are used in the interpretation of statutes only when the intention of the legislature is not clear; when it is clear, they are to be avoided.
Conjecture or suppositions are used when it becomes difficult to comprehend the statute in its own light. The basic presumptions used in the interpretation of statutes are as follows
- The words used in the statute have been used in the literal sense with precise meanings unless otherwise defined.
- There has been effected no change in the rights of the people unless the statute prescribe such a change expressly.
- Liability only attaches where there is mens rea (guilty mind).
- The state or governmental institutions, unless expressly covered, are deemed to be exempted.
- The legislature, while passing the new statute was aware of the manner of functioning of the judiciary and the executive as well as the legal condition in the country and unless stated, has not caused any changes in it.
- No mistakes have been committed by the legislature in drafting the statute.
- No pointless activity would be enjoined on the people.
- The statute has been made with a view to exercise the powers given through it equitably and fairly.
- Where the statute creates a legal duty that is accompanied by a legal power, and cannot stand without it, it is assume both go together.
Question 2 Comment the following: Parliamentary history as an external aid in the interpretation of statutes.
Answer:
Parliamentary history as an external aid in the interpretation of statutes
The external aids of interpretation are generally used when the statute is vague or indistinct in meaning.
Here, the inner means of interpretation would not serve the purpose and some external means, like the circumstances that prevailed at the time of making of the statute, committee reports, if any, links with other acts, dictionaries or even case histories from other countries, would have to be utilized.
If there were other acts leading upto the current one, they could be looked into as well on the assumption that they would shed some light over the current statute.
These external aids, however, have to be used with due care and only in situations where the internal ones prove insufficient in giving an understanding of the statute or its part.
This is because firstly, they are extraneous to the statute in question, and however close to the subject matter, they might not give an accurate picture.
For example, if an act is made in year 1889 regarding a particular thing, and another is made in year 2008, the earlier act would not give a true picture if used as an aid for interpretation of the new act.
This is because the conditions and situations of both acts were different; they were made against different social, political and economic backdrops.
This does not mean that it cannot at all be use for shedding light on the subsequent act; it simply means that it should be used in moderation and with care, and the context and underlying situations too should be kept in mind, while doing so.
Only then would the interpretation be a fair one. Legislative or parliamentary history – This would help in giving a general direction to the interpretation.
The parliamentary history helps in understanding the trend of the legislative thought of the country thus providing a background for the statute under study.
This helps in providing an overview or a general context to the statute. Parliamentary material.
Debates
Courts often take recourse to parliamentary material like debates in Constituent Assembly, speeches of the movers of the Bill, Reports of Committees or Commission, Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, etc.
Fagu Shaw etc. v The State of West Bengal “We may therefore legitimately refer to the Constituent Assembly debates for the purpose of ascertaining what was the object which the Constitution makers had in view and what was the purpose which they intended to achieve when they enacted the law in its present form.”
Statement of Objects and Reasons
So far as Statement of Objects and Reasons, accompanying a legislative bill is concerned, it is permissible to refer to it for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to remedy.
But, it cannot be used to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the substantive provision of the statute.
Reports of Parliamentary Committees and Commissions
Reports of Commissions including Law Commission or Committees including Parliamentary Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill can also be referred to in the Court as evidence of historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil intended to be remedied. [Mithilesh Kumari v Prem Behari Khare. Rosy and another
v State of Kerala ‘and others]] Space to write important points for revision
Question: 3 Explain the rule of ejusdem generis with the help of any case decided by the Supreme Court of India.
Answer:
The rule of ejusdem generis with the help of any case decided by the Supreme Court of India
Rule of Ejusdem Generis: It is one of the basic principles of interpretation. The term itself means ‘of the same kind’, and helps when the statute is not clear as to the implications and coverage.
The rule says that when there is a specific class or classes of Acts or things or persons defined in an Act, any word occurring subsequently will be bound by their coverage, i.e. a wider meaning than the one defined cannot be taken.
For example, under the Central Excise Tariff Act, there are lists of items that come under the same head. If one of the lists say that it is to include textile articles, viz, clothing, sheets, bed covers, etc., it can in no way be inclusive of articles that cannot be termed strictly as being made of textile, like sheets made majority of a synthetic fibre, though containing a small percentage of cotton fibre.
Hence, if the list is an exhaustive or fairly indicative list, a wider meaning cannot be given to it. If, however, there is no specific list, or the class is not that well defined, the application could cover a wider scope.
The universal logic behind this principle is that if a statute had been intended for a general coverage, it would not have included specific words to define the scope of its usage. It is essential though, that this rule should be used with discretion, because there exists the practical risk of the act becoming too specific for actual use.
This rule is merely a rule of construction to help the Courts to find out the true intention of the Legislature (Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, A.I.R 1971 S.C.1033).
In order to make the rule applicable, the following conditions must exist:
- The statute contains an enumeration by specific words,
- The members of the enumeration constitute a class,
- The class is not exhausted by the enumeration,
- A general term follows the enumeration,
- There is a distinct genus which comprises more than one species, and
- There is no clearly manifested intent that the general term be given a broader meaning that the doctrine requires.
Hence, we can safely conclude that “Rule of ejusdem generis is merely a rule of construction to aid the courts to ind out the true intention of the legislature.” In the case of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Harishanker, the Supreme Court established the following as essential elements of this rule:
- The Act contains a list of specific words;
- The subjects of enumeration on constitute a genus;
- That genus is not exhausted by the list;
- The general terms follow the enumeration; and
- There is no indication of a contrary legislative intention.
Question: 4 Explain the ‘mischief rule’ under the Interpretation of Status.
Answer:
The Mischief Rule or the Heydon’s Rule –
According to this rule, when we interpret statutes, we need to consider some facts-
- What was the rule pertaining to the subject matter before the current statute was made.
- What was the mischief or wrong that the common law did not cover till then, so that need for a special law was felt.
- The solution established by the new statute and the motive behind it.
These principles were established by Lord Coke in the famous case of Sir John Heydon. It was decided that when the literal meaning of the words of a statute is obscured, then seeking the mischief which the act seeks to correct or mitigate would help in its interpretation.
Question: 5 Explain the rule of ‘Ejusdem Generis’ under the Interpretation of statute.
Answer:
The rule of ‘Ejusdem Generis’ under the Interpretation of statute
“Ejusdem Generic” literally “means of the same kind or species”. The ejusdem generis rule is that, where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words following particular and specific words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified, unless there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose.
It is merely a rule of construction to aid the Courts to find out the true intention of the Legislature.
To apply the rule the following conditions must exist:
- The statute contains an enumeration by specific words
- The members of the enumeration constitute a class
- The class is not exhausted by the enumeration
- A general term follows the enumeration
- There is a distinct genus which comprises more than one species, and
- There is no clearly manifested intent that the general term be given a broader meaning that the doctrine requires.
The rule of ejusdem generis must be applied with great caution because, it implies a departure from the natural meaning of words, in order to give them a meaning or supposed intention of the legislature.
Question: 6 Describe the “Rule of Reasonable Construction” under the Interpretation of Statutes.
Answer:
The “Rule of Reasonable Construction” under the Interpretation of Statutes
According to Rule of Reasonable Construction the words of a statute must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat, so as to give a sensible meaning to them. A provision of law cannot be so interpreted as to divorce it entirely from common sense; every word or expression used in an Act should receive a natural and fair meaning.
It is the duty of a Court in constructing a statute to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
If, therefore, giving of literal meaning to a word used by the draftsman particularly in penal statute would defeat the object of the legislature, which is to suppress a mischief, the Court can depart from the dictionary meaning which will advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.
It is only when the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence (Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, A.I. R. 1955 S.C. 830).
Courts can depart from dictionary meaning of a word and give it a meaning which will advance the remedy and suppress the mischief provided the Court does not have to conjecture or surmise. A construction will be adopted in accordance with the policy and object of the statute (Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 S.C. 871).
Question 7: Explain the role of ‘Preamble’ as internal aid in interpretation of statute. Though the preamble cannot be used to defect the enacting clause of a statute, it has been treated to be a key for the interpretation of the statute. Examine.
Answer:
The role of ‘Preamble’ as internal aid in interpretation of statute. Though the preamble cannot be used to defect the enacting clause of a statute, it has been treated to be a key for the interpretation of the statute.
The true place of a preamble in a statute was at one time, the subject of conflicting decisions. In Mills v. Wilkins, (1794) 6 Mad. 62, Lord Hold said: “the preamble of a statute is not part thereof, but contains generally the motives or inducement thereof”.
On the other hand, it was said that “the preamble is to be considered, for it is the key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act, and the mischief it was intended to remedy”.
The modern rule lies between these two extremes and is that where the enacting part is explicit and unambiguous the preamble cannot be resorted to, control, qualify or restrict it, but where the enacting part is ambiguous, the preamble can be referred to explain and elucidate it [Raj Mal v. Hamam Singh, (1928) 9 Lah. 260].
In Powell v. Kempton Park Race Course Co., (1899) AC 143, 157, Lord Halsbury said: “Two propositions are quite clear-One that a preamble may afford useful light as to what a statute intends to reach and another that, if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous, no preamble can qualify or cut down the enactment”.
Allahabad High Court has held in Kashi Prasad v. State, AIR 1967 All. 173, that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clauses of a statute, it has been treated to be a key for the interpretation of the statute.
Supreme Court in Kamalpura Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080, pointed out that the preamble may be legitimately consulted in case any ambiguity arises in the construction of an Act and it may be useful to fix the meaning of words used so as to keep the effect of the statute within its real scope.
Question 8: Explain the rule of ‘Expressio Unis Est Exclusio Alterius’ under Interpretation of statutes.
Answer:
Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Regional Transport Authority:
Expressio Unis Est Exclusio Alterius: The maxim ought not to be applied when its application leads to inconsistency or injustice. Similarly, it cannot be applied when the language of the Statute is plain with clear meaning.
Essentially, the rule means that ‘express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another’. Hence, it goes without saying that general words in a statute have to be construed generally, unless the same statute provides for a specific or restricted meaning.
However, in doing so, it is not to be assumed that anything not specifically included is for that reason alone excluded from the protection of the statute. Moreover, the maxim should not be applied when its application leads to inconsistency or injustice in the applicability of the statute or if it defeats its purpose.
Lastly, it cannot be applied when the language of the Statute is plain, i.e. When the meaning is abundantly clear.
Question 9: Discuss the importance of ‘Illustrations’ for interpretation of statutes.
Answer:
The importance of ‘Illustrations’ for interpretation of statutes
As per the rules of interpretation of statutes, Illustrations or Explanations help to give an idea about the intention of the legislature in creating the statute. They help to clarify the intention of the lawmakers.
At times, these are also used to define or elaborate the meaning of certain words used in the statute or a section of an Act. Such explanations and illustrations are deemed to be a part of the statute they are contained in, enlightening the reader of the statute.
However, they simply have the above mentioned powers; they cannot enlarge or curtail the effect or scope of a statute. Moreover, their meaning or interpretation should be derived from their context and no external inferences may be taken. [Lalla Ballanmal v. Ahmad Shah]
Lastly, the use of explanations and illustrations should ensure harmony in the interpretation of the main section, and not cause confusion in the mind of the reader.
It should also be kept in mind while reading explanations and illustrations that they may simply have been included ex-abundanti cautela, so as tp [recluse all chances of confusion.
Question:10 If the intention of the legislature is not clear, there are number of presumptions. Explain any four presumptions.
Answer:
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 recognizes some rules as to presumptions. Presumptions are used in the interpretation of statutes only when the intention of the legislature is not clear; when it is clear, they are to be avoided.
Conjecture or suppositions are used when it becomes difficult to comprehend the statute in its own light. Four basic presumptions used in the interpretation of statutes are as follows:
- The words used in the statute have been used in the literal sense with precise meanings unless otherwise defined.
- There has been effected no change in the rights of the people unless the statute prescribe such a change expressly.
- Liability only attaches where there is mens rea (guilty mind).
- The state or governmental institutions, unless expressly covered, are deemed to be exempted.
Question 11: Describe the role of ‘interpretation or definition clause’ in statutes.
Answer:
The role of ‘interpretation or definition clause’ in statutes
Interpretation or Definition Clauses: Often, definitions form part of the statute, wherein words and expressions are usually explained. This is done in order to make it clear what the usage of the word or words entails throughout that particular statute.
It also helps in avoiding unnecessary repetitions. Such definitions might be used in that Act for the very first time, or they might have been derived from earlier versions of the statute.
Moreover, the definition might be restrictive and exclusive or inclusive and expansive (Balkrishan v. M. Bhai). However, at times the definition might be ambiguous, requiring the common language meaning of the word to be resorted to instead.
Sometimes, when the connotations differ from this meaning, an interpretation clause might be included, which lends precision to the meaning of the word. Then on, wherever that word is used in that statute, it is to carry the meaning denoted in the clause.
Such a clause, however, might not take away from the context of the scheme of the Act, the language, the provision and the object intended to be served
thereby.
Question 12: Discuss the Rule of Harmonious Construction for the interpretation of statutes. (4 marks)
Answer:
Rule of Harmonious Construction – Where two provisions of the same enactment cannot be reconciled with each other they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both. This is the rule of Harmonious Construction.
It helps in maintaining a link between the parts of a statute or between parts within a particular section when there is any discrepancy between them. By doing so, it ensures that no part is rendered redundant.
The meaning is so construed that both the parts play a role in it. This rule of interpretation means that any section or part of a statute should be read with reference to the entire act, i.e. the meaning should be construed in entirety, not singularly.
If while constructing the meaning of a section, it conflicts with the meaning given in another, in all probability there is an error in interpretation. Hence if two sections in the same statute seem to give different meanings or lead to opposite directions, the interpretation should be such as can accommodate both meanings.
When two statutes are complementary to each other. One statute cannot be allowed to overrule the other. Instead one statute should be interpreted in such a way to compromise with the other statute. This is called Harmonious construction of Statutes.
Question 13: What are ‘External Aids’ in the interpretation of statutes? Briefly describe any two external aids in the interpretation of statutes.
Answer:
‘External Aids’ in the interpretation of statutes
The external or peripheral aids to interpretation are generally used when the statute is vague or indistinct in meaning.
Here, the inner means of interpretation would not serve the purpose and some external means, like the circumstances that prevailed at the time of making of the statute, committee reports, if any, links with other acts, dictionaries or even case histories from other countries, would have to be utilized.
If there were other acts leading upto the current one, they could be looked into as well on the assumption that they would shed some light over the current statute.
Two external aids –
Statement of Objects and Reasons: So far as Statement of Objects and Reasons, accompanying a legislative bill is concerned, it is permissible to refer to it for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to remedy.
But, it cannot be used to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the substantive provision of the statute. (Devadoss (dead) by L.Rs, v. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur [16].
Reports of Parliamentary Committees and Commissions: Reports of Commissions including Law Commission or Committees including Parliamentary Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill can also be referred to in the Court as evidence of historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil intended to be remedied. [Mithilesh Kumari v Prem Behari Khare.
Rosy and another v State of Kerala and others].
Descriptive Questions
Question.1: Explain Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege.
Answer:
Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege
This expression implies that a contemporary meaning to an expression gives its best interpretation. With older statutes, the words involved in its exposition have gone through so many changes at times, that to derive the meaning as intended takes a lot of effort.
In that situation, the meaning the words had when the law was made is taken. Hence, the statutes are to be interpreted as when they were made. It is only when there is a doubt regarding the meaning of the words, are the other meanings referred to, and that too, only as presumptive evidence as to the real meaning.
Even though a statute has been misinterpreted wrongly for years, the courts have the authority to bring to it the correct interpretation. The only exception would be when because of the wrong interpretation, property has changed titles or day to day transactions have occurred.