MISCHIEF AND GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

This article contains the following topics:

• Mischief Rule of Interpretation
• Golden Rule of Interpretation

MISCHIEF RULE

The Mischief Rule of interpretation originated in Heydon’s Case (1584). This rule aims to determine the “mischief” or defect in the previous law that the current statute seeks to remedy. It is also known as Heydon’s Rule or the Rule of Purposive Construction.

To apply this rule, the court considers four essential factors:

1. What was the common law before the Act was passed?
2. What mischief or defect did the common law not address?
3. What remedy did the Parliament provide?
4. What was the true reason for the remedy?

Key Case Laws:

Bengal Immunity Company vs State of Bihar (AIR 1955 SC 661): In this case supreme court observed that to arrive at the true intention of the legislature, an enactment should be interpreted in the light of history of the legislation, the mischief it intended to suppress and the provisions of statute.

Kanailal vs Paramnidhi (AIR 1957 SC 507): In this case it was held that mischief Rule is only applicable when a statute is capable of more than one interpretation.

Pyarelal vs Mahadeo Ramachandra (AIR 1974 SC 228): In this case the appellant  argued that supari is not a food within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. But the court in this case held that Supari is an article of food. Court further held that the word food should be interpreted in the context of mischief which the act intended to suppress and advance the remedy. So in this case supari was considered as food by applying the mischief rule.

B.K. Garad vs Nasik Merchants Co-op Bank (AIR 1984 SC 192): In this case the question against court was that whether under section 73-B of the Maharashtra Cooperation Societies act, 1961 it was obligatory to reserve seats for people of SC and ST in the managerial posts. The court in this case apply the mischief rule and held that since all the four conditions of mischief rule are satisfied it is obligatory to reserve seats for the people of SC and ST but holding of an election first is necessary.

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The Golden Rule is a modification of the Literal Rule. It allows the court to deviate from the literal meaning of words in a statute when such an interpretation leads to absurdity, vagueness, or results not intended by the legislature.

This rule is used in the following scenarios:

• When words are ambiguous, vague, or misleading.
• When literal interpretation leads to absurd or unjust outcomes.

Key Case Laws:

Lee vs Knapp [(1967) 2 Q.B. 442]: In this case golden rule of interpretation was used to interpret section 77(1) of Road Transport Act, 1960. As per the section driver causing an accident shall stop at the place after the accident. In this case the driver after causing an accident stopped for a moment and then ran away. Court in this case applied the golden rule and held that the driver has to stop for a reasonable period of time hence he is liable under section 77(1).

R. vs Sigsworth [(1935) 1 Ch 48]: In this case a son had murdered his mother. As per the rules set out in the administration of Justice Act, 1925, the property of mother is inherited by her next of kin i.e. his son. Court in this case applied the golden rule of interpretation and held that although there were no ambiguous words in the act, but court will not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime because it was not intended by the legislature.