Interpretation of Directory and Mandatory Provisions

In one line

A provision is mandatory if failing to comply with it makes the act invalid, and directory if substantial compliance is enough, and you find out which by asking what the provision is for, not by looking for the word "shall".

In the wording a student can write in an exam: a mandatory provision must be strictly observed and non-compliance invalidates the act done, while in the case of a directory provision substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object for which the rule was enacted; whether a provision is mandatory or directory depends upon its language, the context in which it is enacted and its object, and the fact that the statute uses the word "shall" while laying down a duty is not conclusive of the question.

Why the question arises at all

Because a statute prescribes a great many things and does not usually say what happens if they are not done.

A notice is to be given fifteen days in advance, and it is given in twelve. An application is to be accompanied by an affidavit, and it is filed without one. A copy is to be attested by the petitioner, and his advocate attests it. In each case the statute is silent about the consequence, and somebody has to decide whether the act stands or falls.

That is the whole subject. The question is never "is this provision important?" It is "did the legislature intend non-compliance to be fatal?"

The definitions

Mandatory, also called imperative or obligatory: the provision must be strictly observed, and an act done in breach is invalid.

Directory, also called permissive in effect: substantial compliance is sufficient to achieve the object, and a breach, while it may attract other consequences, does not invalidate the act.

Note that "directory" does not mean optional. A directory provision must still be obeyed; the difference is in the consequence of not obeying it.

The test

Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303, states it more fully than any other Indian case on the syllabus, and the propositions below are the Court's own.

Facts. Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303. Section 89(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act 1957 provided that every election petition should be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents, and that every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Section 94(1) provided that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with section 89 or section 90 or section 125. The two provisions are in pari materia with sections 81(3) and 86(1) of the central Act. In the election petition filed by the appellant, both copies bore the endorsement "Attested true copy" over the signature of his advocate rather than his own.