mischief rule
The mischief rule comes from Heydon's Case (1584). The court asks four questions: what was the common law before the Act; what was the mischief or defect the common law did not provide for; what remedy Parliament chose; and the true reason for the remedy. The court then adopts the meaning that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.
The rule permits looking beyond the words to the purpose of the law, and is the forerunner of the modern purposive approach. Indian courts often apply it to social welfare and tax legislation, frequently using the Statement of Objects and Reasons as evidence of the mischief.
Example
Applying the mischief rule, the court held that a statute meant to stop street soliciting covered prostitutes tapping on windows from inside houses.
In Indian law
- Heydon's Case (Court of Exchequer, 1584)
- Smith v. Hughes (Divisional Court, England, 1960)
See also
literal rule · golden rule · purposive interpretation · external aids to interpretation
Read more in the study notes
- The mischief rule (Heydon's case) and purposive construction (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
- Meaning of statute and purpose of interpretation (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
- Restrictive and beneficial construction; welfare legislation (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
- External aids I: legislative history, debates, objects and reasons, commission reports (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
- External aids II: dictionaries, translations, statutes in pari materia, contemporanea expositio (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
- The literal rule and the golden rule (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)