THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL

VOLUME:-17  ISSUE NO:- 17 , NOVEMBER 30, 2024

ISSN (ONLINE):- 2584-1106

Website: www.the lawway with lawyers.com

Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com

Authored by:- Anusha Sanjeevkumar Shatagar

 THE ROLE OF THE MISCHIEF RULE IN RESOLVING AMBIGUITIES IN LAWS.

 

Abstract:

A Mischief rule tells an interpreter to read a statute considering the “mischief’ or “evil”-the problem that prompted the statute. The mischief rule has been associated with Blackstone’s appeal to a statute’s “reason and spirit” and with Hart-and-Sacks-style purposivism. Justice Scalia rejected the mischief rule. But the rule is widely misunderstood, both by those inclined to love it and those inclined to hate it. The literal rule and golden rule are too different from mischief rule. This Article reconsiders the mischief rule. It shows that the rule has two enduringly useful functions: guiding an interpreter to a stopping point for statutory language that can be given a broader or narrower scope, and helping the interpreter prevent clever evasions of the statute. The mischief rule has its own importance. The mischief rule raises fundamental questions about the relationship of text and context, about the construction of ambiguity, and about legal interpretation when we are no longer in “the age of statutes.” In many of our present interpretive conflicts, the mischief rule offers useful guidance. It’s very interesting to know the mischief rule.

Keywords: Interpretation, laws, remedy, Judgements, statutory.

INTRODUCTION: 

Mischief rule is one of the rules used in interpretation of statutes. This rule was held and established by Haydon’s case. It is one of the oldest rules. Under the mischief rule, the courts’ role is to suppress the mischief act; it is aimed at advances Remedy. Mischief rule is used by judges of the courts. Where the judge going to consider the reason for changes in the law. The statutory interpretation of mischief rule was in the landmark case of Heydon .

There are 3 rules in interpretation of statute first: Literal rule, second: Golden rule, third: Mischief rule in interpretation of statutes.

 The literal and golden rule are concerned with finding out what Parliament SAID. The mischief rule is applied to find out what Parliament MEANT The mischief rule is based on the “Heydon’s case [1584]-VERY OLD!.in heydon’s case certain steps were identified as a way of Interpretation. The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case in 1584. It was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the Court’s role is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The Courts while applying the principle tries to find out the real intention behind the enactment. This rule thus assists the court in identifying the proper construction of statutory. 

What is the mischief rule and what does it do? It directs attention to the generating problem, which is public and external to the legislature, something that can. be considered observable in the world. The mischief might be indicated in the statute itself or be established by judicial notice, evidence of public debate preceding enactment, or legislative history.  Nevertheless, there is no necessary relationship between considering the mischief and consulting legislative history. In the years when English courts applied the “Hansard rule,” refusing to consider. debates in Parliament, they nevertheless continued to apply the mischief rule. 18 The mischief rule serves two functions. First, a stopping-point function: 19 it offers a rationale for an interpreter’s choice about how broadly to read a term or provision in a legal text. Second, a clever-evasion function: it allows an interpreter to read a legal text a little more broadly to prevent a clever evasion that. would perpetuate the mischief. Of these two, the stopping-point function is much more common.

Literature Review:

• “Getting into mischief rule: Reflections on statutory interpretation and mischief rule” by Timothy J. Bradley.

Timothy J. Bradley’s “Getting into Mischief” critiques Bray’s argument by highlighting three main issues with the mischief rule. Bradley questions how to distinguish “mischief” from broader legislative purpose, the challenges of consistently identifying the mischief, and the rule’s limited utility in cases with clear textual meaning. He argues that while the mischief rule may be helpful in resolving statutory ambiguities, it should not be used when the statute’s meaning is already clear from its language. Bradley’s paper underscores the need for a more refined approach to statutory interpretation.

• “The Mischief rule” by Samuel L. Bray (Georgetown law journal,2021)

 

Samuel L. Bray’s “The Mischief Rule” argues for the continued relevance of the mischief rule in statutory interpretation, emphasizing its ability to guide interpretation by focusing on the problem a statute addresses. He critiques its rejection by textualists, especially Justice Scalia, and explains its utility in clarifying ambiguous legal texts. Bray positions the rule as a useful tool for both textualists and purposive, aiming to prevent legal evasion and aid in interpreting statutes within their historical and social context. Despite critiques, Bray contends that the mischief rule offers a balanced approach to modern legal challenges.

Objectives of the study:

1. To understanding the mischief of interpretation and its evolution of effectiveness.
2. To analyse the advantages and disadvantages of mischief rule of interpretation
3. To understand loopholes in law and role of mischief rule in closing the loopholes.

Hypothesis: 

 The mischief rule plays an important role in interpretation of statutes. where it provides best way for judge to give the judgements accordingly, so that case can get best judgment.

Research questions

1. Does the mischief rule discover the satisfactory way of interpretation?

 

1. What are advantages and disadvantages of mischief rule of interpretation?

 

1. Why does law contain loopholes? How mischief rule closes the loopholes though law.

Heydon’s case:

In heydon’s case certain steps were identified as a way of Interpretation. The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case in 1584. It was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the Court’s role is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The Courts while applying the principle tries to find out the real intention behind the enactment. This rule thus assists the court in identifying the proper construction of statutory wording according to the original intention of the legislators.

As per this rule, for true interpretation of a statute, four things must be considered:

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 Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth?
4. The true reason of the remedy.

 

There is a legal rule that allows the interpreter to escape this impasse.

1. The mischief rule instructs an interpreter to consider the problem to which the statute was addressed, and the way in which the statute is a remedy for that problem.
2. Put another way, the generating problem is taken as part of the context for reading the statute. In the real stop-the-train case, the court found the mischief to be (at least especially) the problem of train derailments; the court accordingly held that three domesticated geese were not “animals” within the meaning of the statute.
3. In the court’s view, failing to consider the mischief would have meant that trains had to stop even for “snakes, frogs, and fishing worms.”
4. This Article reconsiders and reevaluates the mischief rule. It argues that the mischief rule can help an interpreter give a better account of what the legislature contain.

 

The mischief rule directs that the Courts must adopt that construction which “shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy”. But this does not mean that a construction should be adopted which ignores the plain natural meaning of the words or disregard the context and the collection in which they occur.

Analysis of research questions:

• Does the mischief rule discover the satisfactory way of interpretation?

 Mischief rule of interpretation play very efficiently and effectively working of law the rule is most used by the judge to understand why the new changes are made in law and the judge get a full power to provide the judgement as per the requirement of the peoples. The judge analyses and interpret the decision based on law and sanction were.

 In the case it was stated that judges    should: Consider what the law was before the Act was passed. Identify what was wrong with the law. Decides how Parliament intended to improve the law through the statute in question; Apply that finding to the case before the court.    this was the sincere 16th century attempt to discover the intention of parliament to apply it to cases before the courts.  The mischief rues play a major role were certain rules in gives the distinct point .in which it majorly helps the judges and jury of the court so interpretation with other rule is just a bit of way what law said. but mischief rule says the meant of the law in the interpretation so, it is necessary and important. 

 

• What are advantages and disadvantages of mischief rule.

 

The mischief rule of interpretation has both advantages and disadvantages:

• ADVANTAGES:

1. The fact that this rule helps achieve parliament intent.

The mischief rule deal with what a parliament MEANT by the law it is one of the important advantages of the law.

1. Judge has greater flexibility with this rule.

 When the law is interpretated by mischief rule the judge will get the real meaning of law so that there will be the clear judgment for the case can be given.

1. Helps to avoid absurdity and injustice.

When the law is interpreted by this rule there will be less chance of absurdity which play a major role in providing justice.

• Disadvantages:

 

1. The use of this rule is limited due to purposive approach.

The “purposive approach” is a method used by judges to interpret what statutes (or laws) mean. The purposive approach requires a court to look at the purpose of the statute, and Parliament’s (or a legislature’s) intention when they created the statute, as well as the words written in the statute itself.

 

1. The reliance on the extrinsic aids and their associate problem.

  External aids to interpreting statutes are sources of information and guidance utilised by courts and legal professionals to understand the meaning and intent behind a particular statute. These aids are external to the statute’s text and provide supplementary context for its interpretation.

• Why does law contain loopholes? how mischief rule closes them: 

 

Yes, law contain loopholes because, the law has the purpose where sometimes it will have an oversight. The law contains loopholes in certain time so the mischief rule being not injustice it will close the loopholes. the law plays a vital role in the interpretation of statute.

 

  Important Case: (Smith v Hughes 1960)

Smith v Hughes (1960),

The defendants were charged under the street offences act (1959) with soliciting in a public place. The prostitutes were soliciting from windows, technically not a public place. The Mischief Rule was applied to interpret that the prostitutes were doing what the statute was trying to abolish so they were convicted. The Golden Rule was used to handle a dispute in the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DHSS (1981) case. Here the RCN challenged the involvement of nurses in abortions. Under the offences against the person (1861) it is an offence for anyone to carry out an abortion. However, the abortion act (1967) claims an absolute defence for medically registered practitioners to carry out abortions.

 

Hormonal abortions are commonly administered by nurses. The Mischief Rule was used to interpret that the statute of 1861 was trying to combat backstreet abortions and therefore nurses fall within the 1967 abortion act. The main advantage of The Mischief Rule is that it closes loopholes in the law and allows laws to develop. The main disadvantage is that it creates a crime after the event has taken place, which can be seen in the Smith v Hughes (1960) case. It allows judges to apply their opinions and prejudices – an infringement on the separation of powers.

When comparing the three rules there are differences and similarities. The Literal Rule is the basis of all cases. By providing no scope for the judges input, it upholds the separation of powers and respects parliamentary supremacy. However, its inflexibility can also create injustices. The Golden Rule tries to compliment the Literal Rule by allowing judges to change the meaning of statutes to give justice. However, this infringes the separation of powers. The Mischief Rule gives the most discretion to judges and is suited to specific, often ambiguous cases. The rule allows statutes to be refined and developed. However, the increased role of the judge means that his views and prejudices can influence the final decision.

CONCLUSION:

The mischief rule is familiar yet foreign. The term is widely known, yet it is considered to simply be an older vocabulary for purposivism. The concept is more interesting than that, however, and it speaks to present interpretive disputes.” THE MISCHEIF RULE HAD A WIDE SCOPE WHERE WE CAN DO MORE RESEARCH SO THE INTERPRETATION CAN BE EASY TO HAVE THE STATUTE”. The mischief rule does not neatly fit in the current interpretive landscape. It does not conform to a Scalia-style textualism. It does not generate the broader purpose so important to Hart-and-Sacks-style purposivism.

 

The mischief rule of interpretation being a purposive approach where a rule of interpretation to prevent the misuse of provision of the statute. It is out of step with dynamic statutory interpretation, which looks to the values of the present, not the mischiefs of the past. Yet the mischief rule still has something to offer to a wide array of interpreters. It can be used with a good conscience even by a textualist. 

 

The mischief rule itself does not determine the meaning an interpreter should give to a legal text. Perhaps there is dispute about the mischief. Perhaps the mischief rule points toward one reading, while other canons of interpretation point toward some other reading. Knowing the mischief does not tell the interpreter how intensively the statute addresses it. The rule does not contain within itself any formula for the resolution of such disagreement among interpretive considerations. What the mischief rule offers is guidance rather than determination. But that guidance is useful. It is inherent in language that sometimes the meaning of an expression depends on the context in which the expression appears, not only the textual context but also the temporal context. Sometimes, to give a faithful account of the legislative decision, an interpreter needs to know what the legislature said, and what the legislature said it.

BIBILOGRAPHY:

Websites: 

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com 
2. http://blog.ipleadears.in
3. http://www.lawctopus.com 
4. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu

Research paper:

1. “The Mischief rule” by Samuel L. Bray (Georgetown law journal,2021)
2. “Getting into mischief rule: Reflections on statutory interpretation and mischief rule” by Timothy J. Bradley.

Book referred:

1) Fr. Dr. Davis Panadan Verges.CMI. Christ academy institute of law series 7: legal methods textbook. unit 4 of chapter 6., page number:193-201.