RULES OF

INTERPRETATION

Golden Rule & Mischief Rule

Ms. Pallavi Mishra

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

ALLPPT.com _ Free PowerPoint Templates, Diagrams and Charts

Introduction
GW Paton and Ogders in “Construction of Deeds and Statutes” have
described three rules of interpretation:
First, the Literal Rule: If the meaning of a section is plain, it is to be applied w
hatever the result;
Second, the “Golden Rule” : That the words should be given their ordinary
sense unless that would lead to some absurdity or inconsistency with the rest
of the instrument;
And the third one, “Mischief Rule” which emphasises the general policy of the
statute and the evil at which it was directed.
Criticism of the Literal Rule of Interpretation
The defects in the literal rule of interpretation may be of two types:

 Logical Defect: Ambiguity, Inconsistency and incompleteness

 Absurdity or irrationality
Golden Rule of Interpretation
 ‘The Golden Rule permits the plain meaning to be departed from if a strict
adherence to it would result in an absurdity’, says Odgers.
 The words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular s
ense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such c
onstruction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context o
r in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary.
 The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given t
heir ordinary meaning. ---- Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs.State of
Maharashtra & Ors.- (2001)4SCC534
 Don’t take the lift if there is fire. – Interpretation.
Illustrations for the Golden Rule
In Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yogna Samiti v. Brij Kishore (1988) 4 SCC 274, the
Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person” used in Section 14
of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953, which made provision for grant of land to
landless persons, was limited to “landless laborers”. A landless labour is he
who is engaged in agriculture but having no agricultural land. The Court
further said that “any landless person” did not include a landless
businessman residing in a city. The object of the Act was to implemen
t the Bhoodan movement, which aimed at distribution of land to landless la
bourers who were verged in agriculture. A businessman, though landless cann
ot claim the benefit of the Act.
Illustrations for the Golden Rule
In Narendra Kiadivalapa v. Manikrao Patil, AIR 1977 SC 2171, Section 23 of
the Representation of People Act, 1951, which permitted inclusion of the nam
e in the electoral roll “till the last date for nomination” for an election in the
concerned constituency, has been construed. Section 33(1) of the R.P. Act, 1
951 specifies that the nomination papers shall be presented between the hour
s of 11’O clock in the fore noon and 3’0 clock in the after noon. Reading thes
e provisions together in the light of the object behind them, the Supreme Cou
rt construed the words “last date” in section 23 as “last hour of the last date”
of nomination under Section 33(1) of the Act.
Mischief Rule of Interpretation
Heydon’s Case: (1584) 76 ER 637
For true interpretation of all statutes in general, four things are to be
discerned and considered:
i. What was the common law before the making of the Act?
ii. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not
provide?
iii. What remedy the Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the commonwealth?.
iv. And, the true reason of the remedy; and then to make such constructio
n as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy and to add fo
rce and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the
makers of the Act.
Illustrations for the Mischief Rule
In Bengal Immunity Co Ltd. V State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661,
It was stated that the mischief rule stated in Heydon’s case is equally
applicable in the construction of our constitution. And the mischief rule was
applied to the construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, observing that
it was to cure the mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow of the i
nter-state trade or commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit
without any provincial barrier that the Constitution makers adopted Article 286 in the
Constitution
Illustrations for the Mischief Rule
The Mischief Rule was explained and applied in Raipur Development Authority v. Anupam Sahkari
Griha Nirman Samiti, (2000) 4 SCC 357:
It was held that “whenever there are two possible interpretations, the one which subserves to the
intent of the legislature is to be accepted. The object of the M.P. Town and Country Development
Act, 1973 is for the planned development and thus the interpretation which upholds any such
scheme should be followed. Heydon’s principle is now well recognised in interpreting any
enactment. It lays down that courts must see (a) what was the law before making of the Act;
(b) what was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide; (c ) what is the remedy
that the Act has provided; (d) what is the reason of the remedy. It states that Courts must adopt
that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.”
Reading Materials
 Bindra N.S. Interpretation of Statutes 12th ed. Lexis Nexis Publicati
on pp. 317-327

 Bindra N.S. Interpretation of Statutes 12th ed. Lexis Nexis Publicati

on pp. 327-339