"Mandatory and Directory Or Permissive Words" - Indian Laws - General

Mandatory and Directory Or Permissive Words In Crawford s Statutory Construction (1989 reprint), the following excerpt from People v. Sutcliffe 7 N.Y.S. (2) 431 is quoted : It is a rule of statutory construction that where a statute is framed in terms of command, and there is no indication from the nature or wording of the act or the surrounding circumstances that it is to receive a permissive interpretation, it will be construed as pre-emptory. In his discussion on the subject, Mandatory and Directory or Permissive Words Crawford in the afore-noticed treatise says: Ordinarily the words shall and must are mandatory, and the work may is directory, although they are often used inter-changeably in legislation. This use without regard to their literal meaning generally makes it necessary for the courts to resort to construction in order to discover the real intention of the legislature. Nevertheless, it will always be presumed by the court that the legislature intended to use the words in their usual and natural meaning. If such a meaning, however, leads to absurdity, or great inconvenience, or for some other reason is clearly contrary to the obvious intention of the legislature, then words which ordinarily are mandatory in their nature will be construed as directory, or vice versa. In other words, if the language of the statute, considered as a whole and with due regard to its nature and object, reveals that the legislature intended the words shall and must to be directory, they should be given that meaning. Similarly, under the same circumstances, the word may should be given a mandatory meaning, and especially where the statute concerns the rights and interests of the public, or where third persons have a claim de jure that a power shall be exercised, or whenever something is directed to be done for the sake of justice or the public good, or is necessary to sustain the statute s constitutionality. Yet the construction of mandatory words as directory and directory words as mandatory should not be lightly adopted. The opposite meaning should be unequivocally evidenced before it is accepted as the true meaning; otherwise, there is considerable danger that the legislative intent will be wholly or partially defeated. Crawford further says in his treatise that prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory Negative, prohibitory and exclusive words or terms are indicative of the legislative intent that the statute is to be mandatory. [UNION OF INDIA ORS. VERSUS A.K. PANDEY- 2009 (9) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT]