Introduction

In a search for the real legislative intent and for the purpose of interpreting statutes the courts
have developed a number of conventions and one such convention is the mischief rule.
The rule says that the court has to find out what is the mischief or problem for which an Act
was legislated and then provide a remedy to supress the mischief. To interpret a statute in a
reasonable manner the court must place itself in the chair of a legislator and then construct/
interpret the Act in such a manner as to see that the mischief is cured.
It was formulated in the heydon’s case in 1584 and it still holds good. also called Heydon's
rule of interpretation because.
Facts of heydon’s case is as follows – r vs heydon
In the 16th century, Ottery College, a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor to a man
named Ware and his son for lifetime. Manor is a country house with a large estate.
Country – small settlements outside urban area. The tenancy was established by
copyhold. Copyhold tenancy means that a copy of the title deed is given to the tenant
while the original title remained with the Lord or Lady of the manor. After completion of
the tenancy, the property was supposed to go to the crown. But in the year 1535, the ottery
college leased the same property to another man, named Heydon, for a period of eighty years.
This was done to ensure that the property reached the crown as late as possible. These kinds
of transfers were taking place throughout England. To remove this mischief, the Parliament
enacted the Suppression of Religious Houses Act 1535 (Act of Dissolution). The statute had
the effect of dissolving many religious colleges, including Ottery College, which lost its lands
to Henry VIII. According to it, the tenancy had to be paid to the king and not to church and
whoever started paying tenancy within one year prior to the passing of the act, their tenancy
was cancelled.
Finally, The Court concluded that the purpose of the statute was to cure a mischief resulting
from a defect in the common law. the Court of Exchequer found that the grant to the Wares
was protected by the relevant provision of the Act of Dissolution, but that the lease to Heydon
was void
In this case, the court formulated 4 questions which have to be addressed for the mischief rule
to be applied.
1. What was the common law before making of the act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
3. What remedy the parliament had resolved?
4. True reason of the remedy
Its not necessary that in every case the judges have to formally propound these four questions
in their judgements but consideration of the mischief common in all cases where mischief
rule is applied.
In the years following the Heydon’s case, the mischief rule has now and again been approved
by the Indian courts as a sound rule of judicial interpretation.
the rule is generally evoked where there is some sort of manifest absurdity or ambiguity. To
tackle this, court interprets the words of a statute in the context of mischief. But the rule
cannot be used to apply unnatural meanings to familiar words or it cannot stretch the
language of the statute so much that its former shape is transformed into something which is
significantly different.
A fine example of application of mischief rule In Alamgir vs State of Bihar. the SC has tried
to remedy the mischief by reviewing the purpose or object of the provision. The appellant
was charged under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code which punishes a person who takes
away, entices away, conceals or detains a woman who is the wife of another man in order to
have illicit intercourse. In the present case, the married woman was voluntarily living with
the appellant. The question was whether he was detaining her.
The Supreme Court observed that the provision sought to remedy the mischief of depriving
the husband of the company of his wife and consequently it was enacted with the object of
protecting the rights of the husband. Therefore, consent or willingness of the wife is
irrelevant. Even though she was voluntarily living with the appellant, her husband has been
deprived of her company hence the appellant was held responsible for commission of the
offence.
In another case called Ranjit Udeshi versus State of Maharashtra case, there question of
ambiguity was involved, mischief rule was applied to prove there is no ambiguity in the
words of the statute. Here, the appellant was convicted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal
Code for selling an obscene book titled “Lady Chatterley's Lover.” He contended that the
prosecution had a duty to prove guilty mind against him which in this case is the knowledge
that the book contained obscene material. Further he argued that when there are large number
of books in a book shop, the shopkeeper is not expected to go through each book to see as to
whether some books contain obscene literature.
In this case, the mischief is the sale of obscene literature and it is sought to be remedied by
section 292 and irrespective of whether the seller is aware of the presence of obscenity or not,
he will still be punished for selling it. Hence, Rejecting the appellant’s arguments, the
Supreme Court held that there was no ambiguity in the language of the enactment and that the
meaning of Section 292 is clear and precise.
Multiple constructions
Sometimes there are cases where multiple constructions are possible. it was observed by the
Supreme Court that If two constructions are possible the construction which advances the
intention of the legislation and remedies the mischief should be accepted.
An instance of two constructions can be seen in Kanwar Singh vs Delhi Administration.
officers of the respondents were rounding up stray cattle which were abandoned as under
Section 418 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. They were beaten up by the
appellants who were the owners of the cattle. When prosecuted the appellants pleaded the
right of private defence of property. They also contended that the cattle were not abandoned.
Abandoned is described by dictionaries as completely leaving a thing as a final rejection of
one's responsibilities so that it becomes ownerless.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and stated that In the present instance, to know the
mind of the legislature it is expedient to see what mischief was intended to be suppressed and
what remedy was advanced. So here the mischief was stray cattle roaming around streets and
it was remedied through the act by authorizing authorities of dehli administration to round up
the cattle. In the context of statute, the word abandon must mean let loose or left unattended.
Even appellants did not give up ownership, since they left it unattended they had abandoned
according to act so their conviction was upheld.
Restricted interpretation
Sometimes, based on consideration of the mischief the court make take up a restrictive
approach in the interpretation of a statute.
Gorris v. Scott. Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869 provided that animals have to be
kept in pens if they are carried on board a ship. The defendant shipping company failed to
enclose the some sheep belonging to the plaintiff in pens and during a storm they were
washed overboard. If only the sheep had been penned as required this mishap would not have
occurred.
The Court rejected the plaintiff's suit for breach of statutory duty by the defendant after
applying the mischief rule. Mischief was spread of communicable infections or diseases.
Therefore the Act was passed to prevent infection from spreading from one owner's animals
to those of another. Hence the court said that The Act cannot be used to provide a remedy for
a totally different mischief.
In CIT vs. Sodra Devi case AIR 1957 SC 832, Section 16 (3) of the Indian Income Tax Act of
1922 was considered for interpretation. It reads that in computing the total income of any
individual for the purpose of assessment, income of a wife or minor child of such individual
will also be included. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the word
individual occurring in the aforesaid subsection meant only males or included females.
The Court observed that the mischief which was sought to be remedied was the one resulting
from the widespread practice of husbands entering into nominal partnerships with wives and
fathers admitting their minor children to the benefits of the partnerships of which they were
members. They did all this to evade taxation.
The Income Tax Act sought to remedy this mischief. hence after reviewing , The word
individual was construed to be restricted to males.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Sir Edmund Plowden a distinguished English lawyer has said that a law
consists of two parts, viz, body and soul, the letter of the law is the body of the law and the
sense and reason of the law is the soul of the law. And it often happens that we understand
letter or body of the law in a literal or textual sense but its real intention is sometimes
concealed or hidden. In such cases the mischief rule comes handy. It aims to identify the
underlying problem or mischief that the statute was designed to solve, rather than strictly
interpreting the words of the statute according to their plain, ordinary meaning.
Therefore, the modern approach to interpretative process can be stated as through the spirit
and letter. It is concluded that priority has to be given to the spirit by looking into the
background of the statute, identify the relevant mischief and give a verdict with an intention
to supresses the mischief.

Advantages
1. Another advantage is that the mischief rule fills in gaps in the law. while law is being
legislated, due to oversight, there might be some gaps or loopholes which is remedied
by mischief rule.
2. it gives effect to parliament's intentions. Goes into background, identifies mischief
which the law aims to remedy.
3. it gives scope for interpretation. If each and every aspect is included in the law, it can
become voluminous. So some things are best left for interpretation.
Disadvantages
1. misinterpretation of the intention of legislature. Interpretation when not required and
simply literal rule could be applied.
2. One disadvantage is that if an Act is very old it is difficult to find out what
Parliament’s original aim was, or indeed what the problem was that they were trying
to solve.

Suppression of Religious Houses Act – reign of Henry the VIII. Part of English reformation.
Dissolved all religious houses and property transferred to king.
IPC – penal statute. Its the principal criminal code of India that defines crimes and provides
punishments for almost all kinds of crimes.
Delhi municipal corporation act - A municipal corporation is a local governing body in urban
area authorized to administer governmental affairs of that area. Talks about hoe municipal
corporation has to be established, how members are elected, functions and talks about various
public utility services.

Contagious diseases animals act – act passed by Parliament of the United Kingdom. to deal
with the possibility of economic loss due to communicable diseases among animals. Also
handed over the power of supervision to the centre as local authorities were unable to prevent
diseases.
Indian income tax act – how income tax authorities are elected, how it is computed, talks
about penalty in case of default. It is repealed.