The word interpretation is a very important word in the legal field .government has 3 organs, the legislature must make laws whereas execution has to execute the laws, and the judiciary is seen as the independent, judiciary is responsible for implementing laws. These statutes are made by the legislature but these laws have some loopholes, these loopholes can be interpreted by the courts by many rules.
It is not possible to expect the court to interpret arbitrarily, over the course of time, certain principles or rules have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the court. One of these rules of interpretation is the ' mischief rule of interpretation '.
This rule is also known as Haydon's rule, in this rule, mischief is normally understood to be a kind of specific injury or damage resulting from another person's action or inaction. In case mischief is used to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the statute.
Case; Smith v. Huge revolved around the street offenses act 1956, the statute was enacted to prohibit prostitutes from soliciting on roads to the passing public. Post the enactment of the said Act, the prostitutes began soliciting from their windows and balconies. Since this defeated the intention of the legislation, some prostitutes were charged under section 1(1) of the said act. In response to these charges, the prostitutes pleaded that they were not solicited from the street. This court used t is a legal maxim and held that the prostitutes are not allowed to induce from the windows or balconies of their house.
Case; Rex v. Ramdayal in this case the learned judge of Allahabad high court stated that "Astrue is to be constructed as to suppress the mischief aimed at and to advance the remedy provided by it is the widest sope should be given to the language for this purpose.’
Case; Sewantilal v. Income Tax Commissioner, in this case, it was stated " it is a sound rule of interpretation that a statute should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and to advance the remedy according to the true intention of the makers of the statutes.
Case; The Commissioner Of Income Tax –Madhya Pradesh And Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, justice Bhagwati stated that ‘ it is clear that unless there is any such ambiguity it would not be open to the court to depart from the normal rule of construction which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily gathered from the words which are used.’ The statement makes it clear that this rule can be applied when the word is in the question and it has two meanings.