Interpretation

According to its dictionary meaning, interpretation is an act of explaining the meaning of a thing. In legal
context, interpretation means the act of interpreting and deciphering the intent behind a statute. The term
‘interpretation’ has its roots in the Latin word ‘interpretari’ which means to explain, or to translate. The main
aim of interpreting a statute is to determine the intention behind the law.

The classification of statutes as mandatory and directory is useful in analyzing and solving the problem
of what effect should be given to their directions. But it must be kept in mind in what sense the terms
are used. The general rule is that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled substantially. Some
rules are vital and go to the root of the matter, they cannot be broken; others are only directory and a
breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance.

The Supreme Court of Indian has pointed out on many occasions that the question as to whether a
statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language
in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern, and these are
to be ascertained not only form the

Mandatory statute: A mandatory statute is one which compels performance of certain things or
compels that a certain thing must be done in a certain manner or form. It is a statute which leaves
nothing to the discretion of the Court in respect of compliance with its terms. Mandatory statute relates
to matters of substance, affects substantial rights and is very essence of the thing required to be done.

A mandatory provision in a statute is one which if not followed renders the proceeding to which
it relates illegal and void.

A mandatory provision refers to a rule, regulation or law that must be followed strictly without any
deviation or discretion. Failure to comply with such a provision may result in the nullification of an act
or order.

Directory Provision
A directory provision, on the other hand, refers to a rule or regulation that is
intended to guide the performance of a duty but does not impose a strict
requirement that must be followed. Failure to comply with a directory provision
does not necessarily result in the nullification of an act or order.

If a provision is classified as directory, it may be complied with in a practical and

reasonable manner, taking into account the circumstances of the case. Non-
compliance with a directory provision may not necessarily result in the nullification
of an act or order, but it may still have consequences, such as the imposition of
penalties or the invalidation of certain actions .

INTERPRETATION OF DIRECTORY AND MANDATORY STATUTES

 • There is no universal rule as to when may a statutory provision can be regarded as merely
directory and when mandatory.

• It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully
attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered.

In the case of statutes that are said to be imperative (mandatory), the court have decided that if it is not
done, the whole thing fails and the proceedings that follow upon it are all void. On the other hand, when
the courts hold the provisions to be directory, they say that although such provisions may not have been
complied with, the subsequent proceedings do not fail

• In DA Koregaonkar v State of Bombay AIR 1958 Bom 167

• it was held that, one of the important tests that must always be employed in order to
determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory in character is to consider whether the
non-compliance of a particular provision causes inconvenience or injustice and, if it does, then
the court would say that, the provision must be complied with and that it is obligatory in its
character.

The Interpretation of Mandatory and Directory Provisions

involves a range of Legal Principles and Methods
1. Language of the provision: The language used in the provision itself is often the starting point for
determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the provision uses words such as “shall” or
“must”, it is likely to be mandatory, while provisions that use words such as “may” or “should” are
generally directory.
2. In State of Himachal Pradesh v MP Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349, the Court was interpreting
section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which provided ‘that no court shall take
cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, judge, magistrate,
or member of the armed forces’. It was held that the use of the words ‘no’ and ‘shall’ make it
abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the court to take cognizance of any
offence is absolute and complete.
3.
4. Purpose of the provision: The purpose of the provision can also be an important factor in
determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the provision is designed to protect fundamental
rights or ensure public safety, for example, it is more likely to be mandatory.
5. In Chandrika Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar (2004) 6 SCC 331, it was held that, the question
as to whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not depend upon the phraseology used
therein. The principle as regards the nature of the statute must be determined having regard to the
purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve.
6. In Aeron Steel Rolling Mills v State of Punjab AIR 1960 Punj 55, the question before the court
was whether section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which empowered the State
Government to transfer a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act from one Tribunal to
another, was mandatory or directory.
7. The relevant portion of the provision read as follows—“ The appropriate Government may, by order
in writing and for reasons to be stated therein withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending
 before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding”.
8.
9. Consequences of non-compliance: The consequences of non-compliance with the provision can
also provide clues as to whether it is mandatory or directory. If the failure to comply would result in
serious legal consequences, such as the invalidation of a contract or the loss of a right, it is likely to
be mandatory.
10. Legislative intent: The intent of the legislature when enacting the provision can also be a relevant
factor in determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the legislature clearly intended the
provision to be mandatory, courts are likely to interpret it as such.
11. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233, the Supreme Court observed that
the various rules for determining when a statute might be construed as mandatory and when
directory are only aids for ascertaining the true intention of the legislature which is the determining
factor, and that must ultimately depend upon the context. An enactment, mandatory in form, might
in substance be directory. The use of word ‘shall’ does not conclude the matter.
12.

con

The Supreme Court of India has been stressing time and again that the question whether statute is
mandatory or directory is not capable of generalization and that in each case the court should try and
get at the real intention of the legislature by analyzing the entire provisions of the enactment and the
scheme underlying it.

In Indian law, mandatory provisions are those that must be strictly complied with, while directory
provisions are those that are flexible and can be complied with in a more relaxed manner. The
interpretation of mandatory and directory provisions is important because failure to comply with a
mandatory provision can result in legal consequences, while failure to comply with a directory
provision generally does not.

Mandatory Provision
A mandatory provision refers to a rule, regulation or law that must be followed strictly without any
deviation or discretion. Failure to comply with such a provision may result in the nullification of an act
or order.

If a provision is classified as mandatory, it must be strictly followed without any deviation or discretion.
Failure to comply with a mandatory provision may result in severe consequences, such as the
nullification of an act or order.
 Directory Provision
A directory provision, on the other hand, refers to a rule or regulation that is intended to guide the
performance of a duty but does not impose a strict requirement that must be followed. Failure to
comply with a directory provision does not necessarily result in the nullification of an act or order.

If a provision is classified as directory, it may be complied with in a practical and reasonable manner,
taking into account the circumstances of the case. Non-compliance with a directory provision may not
necessarily result in the nullification of an act or order, but it may still have consequences, such as the
imposition of penalties or the invalidation of certain actions.

The Interpretation of Mandatory and Directory Provisions

involves a range of Legal Principles and Methods
1. Language of the provision: The language used in the provision itself is often the starting point for
determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the provision uses words such as “shall” or
“must”, it is likely to be mandatory, while provisions that use words such as “may” or “should” are
generally directory.
2. Purpose of the provision: The purpose of the provision can also be an important factor in
determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the provision is designed to protect fundamental
rights or ensure public safety, for example, it is more likely to be mandatory.
3. Consequences of non-compliance: The consequences of non-compliance with the provision can
also provide clues as to whether it is mandatory or directory. If the failure to comply would result in
serious legal consequences, such as the invalidation of a contract or the loss of a right, it is likely to
be mandatory.
4. Legislative intent: The intent of the legislature when enacting the provision can also be a relevant
factor in determining whether it is mandatory or directory. If the legislature clearly intended the
provision to be mandatory, courts are likely to interpret it as such.

Rules of Interpretation of Statutes

Since the judiciary has been entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting the law to administer justice. It
is very important that the interpretation is made according to some rules so that the decisions delivered by
the judges are just and bring some coherence to the operational aspects of the law.

The rules of interpretation of statutes are divided into two categories.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Rule

Advantages:

1. It helps to give a rational result.

2. It helps in closing any loophole.
3. It brings common sense to the law.
Disadvantages:

1. Judges have power only in case there is ambiguity.

 2. Judges cannot add or modify a statute.

Mischief Rule
It is a principle used for interpreting a statute which states that the court should first examine the intention
of the legislature. In this, the judges first find the defect in the statute and then apply the remedy for fixing
the defect.

Heydon’s Case
Heydon’s case is considered a landmark case because it laid down the mischief rule of interpretation of
statutes.

Facts:

1. That, Ottery college, a religious college gave tenancy in a manor to a man named Ware and his
son.
2. That, the tenancy was given in accordance with the copyhold. A copyhold was a form of
landholding in which the land was said to be held according to the will of the lord and customs of
the manor.
3. That, the copyhold given to the Wares was part of a parcel.
4. That, the parcel was then leased to a man named Heydon.
5. That, less than a year later, the college was dissolved along with all other religious colleges
because of a law that parliament enacted.
6.That, the law parliament enacted had a provision which kept in force the lease that was granted
more than a year before the enactment of the Act.
Decision: As a result of the provision, the lease granted to the Wares was held valid but the lease granted to
Heydon was held to be void.

Basis for Judgement: While making the decision, the court laid down the mischief rule. It was stated in this
case that the statute should be constructed by seeking the true intent of the makers of the Act.

The judges stated that four considerations should be kept in mind while interpreting statutes:

1. The common law that existed before the Act.

2. The flaw for which common law did not provide.
3. What remedy did the parliament came up with to resolve & cure the distress of the
commonwealth Act?
4. What was the true reason for the remedy?

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Rule

Advantages:

1. It focuses on the parliament’s intention behind making the law.

2. It allows judges to apply their minds.
3. It allows judges to consider the social and technological changes.
4. It allows for parliamentary sovereignty.
5. It helps avoid unjust results.
Disadvantages:
 1. It is difficult to decipher the parliament’s intention.
2. It is considered as an outdated rule of interpretation.
3. It makes the law uncertain.
4. It is said to be undemocratic as it gives too much power to the judiciary which is an unelected
branch of the government.
The mischief rule focuses on determining the intention of lawmakers during the interpretation of
statutes. It originated in the United Kingdom in the 16th century and was established in Heydon’s case.
It was held that the primary aim of interpreting a statute should be to identify the “mischief and
defect” that the statute intended to address and provide an effective remedy. This rule seeks to
answer the question of what problem the previous law failed to cover, leading to the enactment of the
statute in question.

Interpretation of Taxation Statute

Government of India is divided into three branches i.e. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It is the function
of the legislature to make the laws and that of the executive, to enforce those laws. Legislature derives its
power of imposing taxes from Article 265 of the Constitution which states that “No tax can be levied or
collected unless it has the authority of law”.