Mischief rule (Heydon's case)

The mischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the legislator's intention. Originating from a 16th century case (Heydon’s 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. When the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions the most firmly established rule or construction of such words “of all statutes in general be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law is the rule of Heydon’s case. The rules laid down in this case are also known as Purposive Construction or Mischief Rule.

The mischief rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention. It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the "mischief" that the previous law did not cover?

To arrive at the real meaning, it is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act; to consider:

1. What was law before the Act was passed?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the law had not provided?
3. What remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease? and
4. The true reason of the remedy and then the judges have to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief.

Heydon’s case

This was set out in Heydon's Case [1584] 3 CO REP 7a. 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 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. What is the true reason of the remedy?

Advantages -

1) The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as opposed to the Golden or Literal rules.

2) It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing.

Disadvantages -

1) It is considered to be out of date as it has been in use since the 16th century, when common law was the primary source of law and parliamentary supremacy was not established.

2) It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be undemocratic.

3) In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to remedy.

4) It can make the law uncertain.

Examples:

Gorris v. Scott 1874

• A new statute provided that animals transported by ship must be kept in cages. The ship owners did not keep the plaintiff’s sheep in cages and some of them fell off the ship during storm. The plaintiff sued the ship owner for breach of statutory duty, which was rejected by the court on the ground that the statute was enacted in order to prevent infection spreading from one owner’s animals to those of another; and therefore this statute could not be used to provide a remedy for a totally different mischief.
• Prohibition of intoxication in Islam
• Prostitutes in the windows
• Gift to a heir in the last month of fiscal year to avoid zakat.

How to find out mischief?

1. Debate in legislature
2. Objectives of the Act
3. Preamble and introduction
4. Dictionary
5. Whole meaning of the statute
6. Earlier statutes on the same subject
7. International conventions and treaties
8. Marginal Notes
9. Report of law commissions

10. Beneficial Construction 

    The general rule of the statute is that if a word used in the statute excludes certain cases in its common meaning, it should not be forced unnecessarily to include those cases. An exception to this rule is that when the main objective of the statute is not achieved by excluding those cases then the word may be interpreted on the basis of the case requires. 

    This rule of interpretation will benefit individuals. Whenever there is an ambiguity or when the which would take the benefit away from the individual, so the meaning which prevails over the benefit to the individuals should be adopted. 

    The courts should be generous towards the persons to whom benefits are conferred by the statute. Here it involves the judges to give the widest meaning to the statute in order to protect the interest of the parties, if you look into certain statutes the main purpose is to benefit and protect the interest of the person, for example, Industrial Disputes Act, Consumer Protection Act, Juvenile Justice Act and all labour-related laws. Provision is capable of giving two meanings where one would preserve the benefit and another.

    Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate

    In this case, the court held that in a case which is related to the prevention of unfair labour practices it should be made completely in accordance with the labour point of view as they are benefitting people here and while interpreting Social Welfare Legislation also they should consider the benefitting people of the society.

    Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasium

    The supreme court held that the rights of maintenance of children below two years old and the mother under Section 125 of the code of civil procedure 1973 are independent of each other and any other and subsequent legislature regarding maintenance of children below two year and mother that maybe Muslim women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 could not affect the same in absence of clear provision to the effect.