The word “Mischief” depicts “the facts presumed to be known to parliament when the bill which became the act in question was before it and “the unsatisfactory state of affairs” which the parliament seek to remedy by way of enactment of the statute in question.
Mischief rule is to determine “mischief” that the previous law did not cover and what methodology would suffice in implementation of the remedy.
Court should identify the mischief which existed before passing of the statute and then if more than one construction is possible, favour that which will eliminate the mischief so identified.
In applying a purposive construction a word of caution is necessary that the text of the statute is not to be sacrificed and the court cannot rewrite the statute. The Mischief rule of interpretation originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. The court came up with questions to be taken into account while construing an act, a. What was the common law before passing of the Act in question?
b. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law/ law did not provide?
c. What remedy the parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth, and
d. The true reason of the remedy;
And then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy.
Smith v. Hughes (1960)I WLR
Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959
Question was whether prostitutes who attracted prospective customer from balconies or windows were soliciting in a street as provided under section (1) of the said act.
Held: Applying the mischief rule it was held that Soliciting in a street and thus place from where they were doing so was of no consequences because the act was intended to clean up the street to enable people to walk along with street without being molested or solicited by prostitute.
Lord Parker “I approach the matter by considering what the mischief is aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows that this was an act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitute.” Viewed in that way, the precise place from which a prostitute addressed her solicitations to somebody walking in the street became irrelevant.
Bengal Immunity Co. V. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661.
The main question answered by the Supreme Court of India in this case was; Whether Article 286 of the Indian Constitution could be construed in a manner to allow the tax levied in the factual matrix of the case?
The Apex Court adopted the rule expounded in the 16th Century Heydon;s case and held that “ It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow of inter-state trade and commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without any provincial barrier that the constitution makers adopted Art. 286 in the constitution.
Court came to this decision after tracing back the evolution of the Bihar Act. The before the independence of India witnessed the laws with regard to sales tax being levied on the basis of territorial nexus which further resulted in multiple taxation. This paved the way for the constituent Assembly to include Article 286 in the constitution to curb such taxation transactions by the states. Supreme court order: The appeal is allowed and an order shall be issued directing that, until Parliament by law provides otherwise, the State of Bihar do
for bear and abstain from imposing Sales Tax on out-of-State dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce even though the goods have been delivered as a direct result of such sales or purchases for consumption in Bihar. The State must pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and in the Court below. The interveners must bear and pay their own costs.
Koppisetti Subbharao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC
Question posed before Apex court was relating to the expression “husband” used under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether legally valid marriage was a necessary condition to fulfill the criteria of such expression
In the case of Dowry Prohibition Act, the courts so as to avoid harassment of women over demand for dowry gave a broad interpretation of the relevant expression. Under the Dowry Act no claim could be enforced without establishing a legally valid marriage, the purpose for which section 498A, 304- B of IPC cannot be forgotten.
Held: The husband covered a person who entered into a marital relationship and under such proclaimed status of husband subjected the woman concerned to cruelty or coercion.
In Sri Ram Saha v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 11 SCC 497.
Supreme Court observed that the court could not re-write a statute in the guise of purposive interpretation. A purposive interpretation may permit a reading of the provision consistent with the purpose and object of the Act but the court cannot legislate and enact the provision either creating or taking away substantial rights by stretching or straining a piece of legislation.