KSLU Solved Question Papers
Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2013 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Discuss the rule laid down in Heyden's case.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the origin of the rule in Heydon's Case and its four questions; the duty to "suppress the mischief and advance the remedy"; when the rule is used; how the mischief is found (the earlier law, the Act as a whole, reports and debates); decided cases: Smith v. Hughes, Kanwar Singh, Bengal Immunity, Sodra Devi, Peerless; the rule in its modern form, purposive construction (Abhiram Singh); the rule against evasion; comparison with the literal and golden rules; merits and limits; conclusion.
Origin
The mischief rule comes from Heydon's Case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, decided by the Barons of the Exchequer. As the Supreme Court of India quoted it in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the Barons resolved that "for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general" four things are to be discerned and considered.
- What was the common law before the making of the Act?
- What was "the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide"?
- What remedy has Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth?
- "The true reason of the remedy."
Then "the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy". The judges must also suppress "subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance of the mischief".
When the rule is used
The mischief rule is used where the words of a statute are doubtful. It is also used where a literal reading would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The court looks behind the words to the evil the law was made to cure, and reads the words to cure it.
How the mischief is found
- The earlier law. What was the position before the Act, and what was wrong with it?
- The Act as a whole. Its title, preamble and scheme often show its purpose.
- Reports and debates. Committee reports and the speech of the Minister who moved the Bill may show the problem the Act addressed.
Decided cases
1. Smith v. Hughes. In Smith v. Hughes, [1960] 1 WLR 830, section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence for a common prostitute to solicit "in a street or public place". The defendants solicited men in the street from a balcony and from behind the windows of a house. They argued that they were not "in a street". The Divisional Court upheld their convictions. The mischief was the nuisance of soliciting addressed to people in the street. It did not matter where the women stood, so long as their soliciting was directed to people in the street.
2. Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration. In Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871, a raiding party of the Delhi Corporation rounded up stray cattle under section 418(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. The section allowed "abandoned" cattle to be impounded. The owners beat the officials with lathis. Prosecuted, they argued that the cattle had owners and so were not "abandoned". The Supreme Court held that "abandoned" meant "let loose" or "left unattended". The mischief was stray cattle on the streets. A court may depart from the dictionary meaning, even in a penal statute, to "advance the remedy and suppress the mischief".
3. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, decided on 6 September 1955, a Calcutta company with no office or agent in Bihar sold medicines to buyers there. Bihar sought to tax those sales. The Court had to construe article 286 of the Constitution. It set out the four questions of Heydon's Case and applied them. By four to three it held that Bihar could not tax such inter-State sales until Parliament by law provided otherwise.
4. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sodra Devi. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957 SC 832, section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act 1922 added to the income "of any individual" the partnership income of his wife or minor child. The question was whether "individual" included a mother. By two to one, the Court found the word ambiguous and turned to the mischief. The Income-Tax Enquiry Report of 1936 showed that the evil was husbands and fathers entering into nominal partnerships with wives and minor children. "The possibility of a mother doing so was not even thought of." So "individual" meant only a male.
5. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1023, the Court read the definition of "prize chit" in the 1978 banning Act in the light of the expert study groups that preceded it. "A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted."
Applying the four questions: a worked example
A State Act of 2020 bans the sale of "plastic carry bags". Shops begin selling thin bags made of a plastic-coated paper and call them "paper bags". A shopkeeper is charged.
- The earlier law. Before 2020 there was no control on plastic bags.
- The mischief. Thin plastic bags were choking drains, harming cattle and polluting land.
- The remedy. The legislature banned the sale of plastic carry bags.
- The true reason. To stop the pollution caused by plastic that does not break down.
A bag coated with plastic causes the same harm. Calling it a "paper bag" is the kind of "evasion" the rule exists to defeat. So, if the words "plastic carry bag" can fairly cover a plastic-coated bag, the court reads them that way. If the Act is penal and the words truly cannot cover it, the gap must be filled by amending the Act.
The modern form: purposive construction
The mischief rule has grown into the purposive approach, which reads every statute in the light of its purpose, not only an ambiguous one. In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, AIR 2017 SC 401, the majority read section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 broadly. It read it together with provisions enacted at the same time in 1961 to curb communal appeals. It recorded that "the shift towards purposive interpretation is not in doubt".
The rule against evasion
Heydon's Case also directs judges to suppress "subtle inventions and evasions". So the mischief rule catches devices designed to keep the mischief alive while escaping the words. Soliciting from a balcony in Smith v. Hughes was such a device.
Comparison with the other rules
| Point | Literal rule | Golden rule | Mischief rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | What do the words say? | Is the result absurd? | What evil was the Act meant to cure? |
| Starting point | The words | The words | The purpose |
| Leading case | Whiteley v. Chappell | Tirath Singh | Heydon's Case; Smith v. Hughes |
| Strength | Certainty | Avoids absurdity | Gives effect to purpose |
The rule in Indian practice
Indian courts use the mischief rule often, and they look for the mischief in the materials of the Act's history. Sodra Devi used a committee report, and Peerless used expert study groups. Bengal Immunity used the history of article 286. The rule is not limited to statutes. The Supreme Court has applied it to the Constitution itself.
Merits
- It gives effect to the real purpose of the law.
- It stops the law being evaded by clever devices.
- It lets old Acts reach new situations within their purpose.
Limits
- It cannot override clear words.
- Finding the mischief may need outside material, which can be uncertain.
- It gives judges more freedom, so it must be used with care to avoid judicial law-making.
- In penal laws, a real doubt still favours the accused.
Conclusion. The mischief rule, from Heydon's Case, asks what evil a statute was meant to cure. It then reads the words to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Smith v. Hughes and Kanwar Singh show it defeating narrow readings that would have frustrated the law. Bengal Immunity and Sodra Devi show the Supreme Court applying it to the Constitution and to a taxing Act. In its modern form it is purposive construction, but it still works only where the words leave room for it.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.