NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA,

CUTTACK

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Prepared under the guidance of:
Prof. Abhik Majumdar
(Assistant Law Professor)
(School of Law)

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

Submitted by:
Aman Pandey (2012/ B.B.A./LL.B./009)
Rishi Raj (2012/B.B.A./LL.B./040)

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

TABLE OF CONTENT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CASES.....................................................................................................................3
LIST OF STATUES.....................................................................................................................4
OTHER AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................................4
DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................7
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................7
OBJECTIVE:...............................................................................................................................7
SCOPE.........................................................................................................................................7
HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................................................................8
RESEARCH QUESTION...........................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................9
TEST OF DETERMINING...........................................................................................................10
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE...................................................................................10
USE OF IMPERITIVE AND PERMISSIVE WORDS.............................................................11
NEGATIVE LANGUAGE:.......................................................................................................13
AFFIRMATIVE PROVISION...................................................................................................14
PROVISIONS RELATING TO PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTY.................................14
CARITAS INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS............................................................16
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................19

2|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
B.S. KHURANA & ORS. VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS...................13
BALASUBRAMANYAN V. STATE OF KERALA, 2005 (4) KLT 882......................................11
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS BLUE OCEAN SEA TRANSPORT LTD. 2013
(3) TMI 374...............................................................................................................................18
DATTATRAYA MORESHWAR VS. THE STATE OF BOMBAY & ORS..................................12
DATTATREY V. STATE OF BOMBAY.......................................................................................14
DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES V. STATE OF U.P. (2011) 8 SCLR 064.......................................11
DR MAACHANDRA SINGH PRASAD V. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
...................................................................................................................................................10
JOHNSON V. PAUTLER 174 N.E.2D 675...................................................................................17
KAVANAUGH V FARH, CCA .OKL; 74 F.2D 435, 437.............................................................17
LAXMI NARAYAN V. UNION OF INDIA (1976) 2 SCC 953....................................................11
M/S. RUBBER HOUSE VS. M/S. EXCELLSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD............13
MACKINON MACKENZIE LTD VS MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION, (2015) 2 SCC
410.............................................................................................................................................14
MONTREAL STREEL RAILWAY CO. V. NORMANDIN , AIR 1917 PC 142..........................14
MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY CO V NORMADIN..............................................................17
PRATAP SINGH V. SHRI KRISHNA GUPTA.............................................................................12
RANI KUSUM V. KANCHAN DEVI..........................................................................................13
SHAIK SALIM HAJI KHAYUMSAB V KUMAR, (2006) 1 SCC 46........................................13
STATE OF PUNJAB V. SAT PAL DANG & ORS, AIR 1969 SC 903.........................................11
STATE OF PUNJAB V. SATYA PAL DANG AIR 1969 SC 903..................................................11
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. SINGHARA SINGH.............................................................11
T.M.PRAKASH VS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2013(4) CLT 529 (MAD. HC).................11
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. A.K. PANDEY [2009] INSC 1595..............................................13
3|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

WILCOX V. BILLINGS, 200 KAN. 654 (1968)..........................................................................17

LIST OF STATUES
BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (DISQUALIFICATION ON GROUND OF DEFECTION)
RULES, 1994...............................................................................................................................6
CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002......................................................................7
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908..............................................................................................10
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957.......................................................................9
THE INCOME ACT, (1961)..........................................................................................................11

OTHER AUTHORITIES
A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE (ED. 2008).............................................7
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, ( 6TH EDITION )......................................................................6
CORPUS JURIS VOL. 59,............................................................................................................11
MANISHA SINGH NAIR, INDIA: COURT DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN TRADEMARKS LAW., LEXORBIS
30 JULY 2008..............................................................................................................................9
MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUES, 11TH EDN......................................................11

4|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

DECLARATION
This is to certify that authors of this project are solely responsible for the work submitted in this
thesis, that the original work is our own except as specified in acknowledgments or in footnotes,
and that neither the thesis nor the original work contained therein has been submitted to this or
any other institution for a degree. This project report has been prepared by the author academic
purposes only.
. (Signed)

. (Signed)

... (Date)

... (Date)

5|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We1 take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to our Professor
Abhik Majumdar for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the completion of this project topic. We are most grateful to him for giving us his
valuable time, experience and patience, and for providing me with major inputs that have given
focus to this report and sharpened my knowledge of the subject. The help and guidance given by
him time to time shall carry us a long way in the journey of life on which we are about to
embark. Also, the guideline provided by him to stick to the deadline was also encouraging.

1 The authors are the students of BBA.LLB (Hons), currently in 3rd year, at National Law
University, Odisha, Cuttack.
6|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

ABSTRACT
This paper is a brief study of the directory provision contained in the Indian legislation.
Directory provisions are those provisions which are mere rules but do not attract consequence
unlike mandatory provision which imposed consequences on non-compliance. Though there can
be no general rules to decide whether a provision is directory or mandatory, it authors have tried
to establish the judicial trend applied in such interpretation. In order to determine the main
question, the contextual approach which the court has taken and evolved this principle has been
explained and more emphasis in this regard has been put on the legislative intent, as it is the
ruling in many cases that in case of inconsistency the legislative intent will prevail.

OBJECTIVE:
The main objective of this project is to:

Analyze the role of directory provision in an Indian legislation.

Analyze the difference between directory and mandatory provision.
Application of the contextual approach in determining the nature of the provision.

SCOPE
As the title suggest Ambit of directory provision in Indian law, this project is limited to Indian
jurisdiction, but for the principle of general interpretation applicable to determine the main
question here, reference has been made to other jurisdiction. This project is merely an analysis of
development of judicial approach to a directory provision through case laws.

7|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

HYPOTHESIS
Given that there can be no general rule to determine the nature of a provision; the legislative
intent will prevail over other consideration available to the court.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the nature of directory provision in Indian Legislation?

What is test laid down by judicial precedent to determine if the provision in question

directive or not.
Can a provision be treated as directory even if on the face of it, the provision appears
mandatory to avoid injustice to the party?

8|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

INTRODUCTION
The word directory is defined as permissive in Blacks Law Dictionary2. under a general
classification It is clarified that , statutes are either "mandatory" or "directory" and if it is
mandatory, they recommend, notwithstanding obligation to do what is specified, the outcome
that will follow if they are not done, though, if directory, their obligation is restricted. A statute is
considered directory when it contains matters simply of direction and involves something to be
carried out at a consequent stage. But it becomes mandatory when those orders are followed by
an express provision that in case of non-compliance the same should be invalid and void. If the
provision is just directory, in case legality of the thing done whether the provision are entirely
followed or not. It is difficult to set out any general rule for making any provision mandatory or
directory.

2 461 (6TH EDN).

9|Page

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

TEST OF DETERMINING
No general rule can be set down for determining whether any specific provision in a statute is
mandatory,

that non-compliance thereof makes it invalid, or just directory, i.e. its non-

compliance does not makes it invalid, whatever different results may happen. The real questions
while declaring if a provision is mandatory or directory are:

Whether a thing has been ordered by the legislature to be done

What are the consequences if not done

In Dr Maachandra Singh Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council 3 the supreme court of
India is stressing time and again 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. The Supreme Court was concerned with interpretation of the tenet of the Bihar Legislative
Council (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1994. While considering the
submission that a affidavit which is required to be filed as per sub-run 6 of Rule 6 of the Rules,
the Court held that the provision thereof are not so mandatory in nature that even a slight
infraction of the Rules would render the whole proceeding started by the chairman invalid or
without jurisdiction. It was in that sense the provision was held to be directory in nature. We may
perceive that in terms of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, a plaint must be confirmed
by an affidavit, which is obligatory in nature.

INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE

In each case of interpreting whether a provision is directory or not, the court has to decide the
legislative intent. To decide this court has to consider not only the actual words or language used,
but also the scheme of the statute, inter alia the nature and design of the statute the intended
benefit to public or what is enjoyed by the provision and the material danger to the public by the
contravention of the same.4 If holding the same directory defeats the object of the enactment, it

3 (2004) 8 SCC 747

4 LIVERPOOL BOROUGH BANK V. TURNER,. (1860) 2 DEGF&J 502
10 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

will be construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory serious general
inconvenience will be created in innocent person without very much furthering the object of the
enactment, the same will be constructed as directory.5 The court have to analyze this question
upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision
is the determining factor. The subject matter, the importance of the provision, the relation of that
provision to the general object intended to be secured, the Act will decide whether the provision
in directory or not.6 In all cases, it is the duty of the courts to get the real intention of the
legislature by carefully attending the whole scope of the provision to be constructed.7
There are several tests to determine when the provision is to be treated directory and when not. 8
One of the distinctions is that in those cases where strict compliance is indicated to be a
condition precedent to the validity of the Act itself the neglect to perform it is indicated is fatal. 9
But in cases where although a public duty is imposed and the manner of performance is also
indicated in imperative language, the provision is usually regarded as merely directory when
general injustice results to other and they have no control over those exercising the duty. 10 If the
legislative intent is expressly cleared and strongly in imperative words, such as the use of word
must instead of shall that will itself be sufficient to hold the provision to be mandatory, and
it will not be necessary to pursue the inquiry further. If the provision is couched in prohibitive or
negative language, it can rarely be directory; the use of peremptory language in a negative form
is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory.11

5 DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES V. STATE OF U.P. (2011) 8 SCLR 064

6 A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE 108 (ED. 2008).
7 T.M.PRAKASH VS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2013(4) CLT 529 (MAD. HC).
8 STATE OF PUNJAB V. SATYA PAL DANG AIR 1969 SC 903
9 BALASUBRAMANYAN V. STATE OF KERALA, 2005 (4) KLT 882
10 STATE OF PUNJAB V. SAT PAL DANG & ORS, AIR 1969 SC 903.
11 LAXMI NARAYAN V. UNION OF INDIA (1976) 2 SCC 953
11 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

USE OF IMPERITIVE AND PERMISSIVE WORDS

It is well settled in law that if any statute provides a particular thing to be taken in a particular
manner, it is to be done in that manner alone, or not at all, and if it is not done in accordance with
the provision of such a statute the action taken, or order done is accordance with the provision of
such a statute, the action taken or order passed in vitiated and it becomes unsustainable. 12 A
reference in this regard may be made in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh.13 The words,
may, shall and must used in the provision should initially be deemed to have been used
in their natural and ordinary sense. May connotes permission and suggests that the authority
has been permitted discretion, "Shall" in the ordinary sense imports a command, Must is
without a doubt an expression of order.14 In all cases, nonetheless, the intention of the legislature
will direct the court in his search for meaning. The word may and shall as used in statutes
will in cases of uncertainty require a contextual approach of interpretation so as to find out their
real meaning or the opposite one. It is rebuttable whether the word shall or may used as a
part of a specific provision is used in the natural sense or not.
A procedural provision would have to be regarded as not being mandatory and unless some
prejudice was caused to the other side. 15 When the Legislature does not itself state what should
be mandatory and what only directory, the judges must decide the matter vide their discretionary
power. In Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta16, the Supreme court ruled that "some rules are
vital and got to be the root of the matter: they cannot be broken; others are only directory and a

12 SUPRA NOTE 9., A.B. KAFALTIYA ON P. 111

13 AIR 1964 SC 358
14 SUPRA NOTE 9., A.B. KAFALTIYA ON P. 111
15 MANISHA SINGH NAIR, INDIA: COURT DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN TRADEMARKS LAW., LEXORBIS 30
JULY 2008
16 AIR 1956 SC 140
12 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance with the rules read as
a whole and provided no prejudice ensues.
In Dattatraya Moreshwar Vs. The State of Bombay & Ors17, this Court observed that: .
It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of the statute creating public duties are
directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provision of a statute
relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts
done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons
who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote
the main object of legislature, it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be
directory only the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done.
The difference between a mandatory and directory rule is that the former requires strict
observance while in the case of latter, substantial compliance of the rule may be enough.18
In M/s. Rubber House Vs. M/s. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd 19, this Court considered the
provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1976, which provided for
mentioning the amount of arrears of rent in the application and held the provision to be directory
though the word shall has been used in the statutory provision for the reason that noncompliance of the rule, i.e. non-mentioning of the quantum of arrears of rent did involve no
invalidating consequence and also did not visit any penalty.
In B.S. Khurana & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors20, the provisions of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was being referred to, especially those managing transfer of
immovable property possessed by the Municipal Corporation. After considering the scheme of
the Act with the intention of transferring the property having a belonging to the Corporation, the

17 AIR 1952 SC 181

18 SHARIF-UD-DIN V. ABDUL GANI LONE AIR 1980 SC 303
19 AIR 1989 SC 1160
20 (2000) 7 SCC 679
13 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

Court held that the Commissioner could alienate the property only on obtaining the prior
sanction of the Corporation and this condition was held to be mandatory for the reason that the
effect of non-observance of the statutory prescription would vitiate the transfer though no
specific power had been conferred upon the Corporation to transfer the property.

NEGATIVE LANGUAGE:
Negative words are clearly prohibitive and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a
statute imperative.21 Doing of prohibited thing by a court or the official is ultra virus and illegal,
it must be followed that it was done without jurisdiction. It is a general rule that a statute, which
is negative or prohibitory, although it provides on penalty for non-compliance, shows a
legislative intent to make the provision mandatory as in most of the cases; the intention of the
legislature will prevail. The provision must be looked in its context for determining whether it is
directory or not.22
In Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi,23 the Supreme Court constructed Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and held that these provisions do not take way the power of the court to
take written statement on record though filed beyond 90 days. They only cast an obligation on
defendant to file it within the specified time. The court when called upon to interpret the nature
of the provision, may, keep in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted,
hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form.

AFFIRMATIVE PROVISION
Where the words of the enactment are affirmative and relate to the manner in which power vest
in the public officer is to be exercised, and not to the limits of the power, they may and often
have been constructed to be directory. However, such provisions should be interpreted keeping in
view the object of the enactment.24 If a statute does not declare a contact made infringing upon a

21 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. A.K. PANDEY [2009] INSC 1595 (16 SEPTEMBER 2009).
22 SHAIK SALIM HAJI KHAYUMSAB V KUMAR, (2006) 1 SCC 46.
23 (2005) 6 SCC 705.
14 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

specific provision to be void, the law is declaratory. At the same time where some particular
compliance was required and that compliance was not performed, the contract may be void.

PROVISIONS RELATING TO PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTY

Where the provision of a statute relates to the performance of a public duty and where the
invalidation of acts done in neglect of them would work serious inconvenience or injustice to
person who have no control over those entrusted with the duty without promoting the essential
aims of the legislature, such prescriptions seem to be generally understood as mere instruction
for the guidance or, in other words, as directory only.25 The neglect of them may be penal indeed,
but it does not affect the validity of the act done in disregard of them. 26 When a public duty is
imposed and the statute requires that it shall be performed in a certain manner it may be regarded
as directory of injustice to others who have no control over those exercising the duty would
result though such requirement may be essential.27 In Dattatrey v. State of Bombay28 the Supreme
Court observed:
Generally speaking the provision of a statute creating public duties is directory and those
conferring private rights are imperative. When the provision of a statute relate to the
performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect
of this duty would work serious incontinence or injustice to person who have no control over
those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the
legislation, it has been practice of the court to hold such provision to be directory only, the
neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done.

24 SUPRA NOTE 9,. A.B. KAFALTIYA., SEE P. 120.

25 MACKINON MACKENZIE LTD VS MACKINNON EMPLOYEES UNION, (2015) 2 SCC
410
26 MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUES, 11TH EDN., P. 380
27 MONTREAL STREEL RAILWAY CO. V. NORMANDIN , AIR 1917 PC 142
28 AIR 1952 SC 181
15 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

Statutes relating to judicial duties and proceedings are constructed directory when judicial
discretion is conferred; but a statutory requirement relating to procedure may be interpreted as
mandatory if it confers upon a litigant a substantial right or have an absolute right to the benefit
of the statute.29

29 CORPUS JURIS VOL. 59, P. 1076

16 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

CARITAS INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The petitioner was Churchs Auxiliary for Social Action a NGO which claimed for 100 %
deduction for the donation received toward the gurajat earth quake. 30 He however failed to
comply section 5( c ) (v) of the Act, which clearly specifies that accounts of income and
expenditure should be rendered to the proper authority on or before 30 th June, 2001. Due to this
the entire donation was deemed to be taxable. The petitioner submitting it at later time i.e. 30 th of
March, 2006, filed an application for condonation of delay before the Director of Income-Tax
(Exemption). The application was however rejected on the ground that there is no provision of
condonation of delay in the statute in Section 80G (5C) (v) of the Act and no hearing was given
to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. This order has adversely affected the
interest of the petitioner therefore, it was necessary to provide an opportunity of being heard. The
question here was whether the provision which dealt with the manner in which the books of
account to be rendered were mandatory or directory.
Keeping in view the reason for which this provision was particularly enacted by the legislature,
viz., to encourage the donors demonstrating magnanimity in giving the donation generously to
create funds for giving reliefs to the casualties, we are of the conclusion that such a provision
must be viewed as directory in nature. Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been added
in the statute with encourage the donors. Section 80G encourages grants of donation to specific
trusts, magnanimous foundations, and so forth by empowering such donors to claim deductions
in appreciation of those donations. It is important to rest the obligation to maintain separate
books of account and render them before the competent authority on these organizations, as it is
no one but this institution which can show that the donation received was used just for giving
help to the victim and the unutilized sum, if any, has been transferred to the Prime Minister's
National Relief Fund. These are obviously the mandatory provisions as schemes of the donation
i.e. the amount of donation must be received inside particular period. It is also to be bear in mind
that if the donation is made taxable, the petitioner will have to pay tax of many crores for the
expenses on the purpose mentioned therein, even if it is not having a penny in its hand.

30 THE INCOME ACT, 80G (1961)

17 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

when a particular provision of a statute related to some immaterial matter, as to which
compliance with the statute is a matter of convenience rather than substance, or where the
directions of a statute are given merely with a view to the proper, orderly, and prompt conduct of
business, it is generally regarded as directory, unless followed by rules of absolute prohibitions;
and a statute is regarded as directory where no substantial rights depend on it, no injury can
result from ignoring it, and the purpose of the legislature can be accomplished in a manner other
than that prescribed, with substantially the same results.31
It is not always correct to say that when the word `may' has been used, the statute is only
permissible or directory in the sense that non-compliance with those provisions will not render
the proceeding invalid.32
The very purpose behind the enactment was to promote donation. We find that the real intention
of the assembly while this enactment33 was to guarantee use of donation to particular reason by
specified date and that some part of the provision is mandatory. To keep a track that donations
are applied for the stipulated purpose, necessity of rendering of accounts is to be introduced.
However, if there is some delay in rendering this accounts, the legislature never expected that
such foundations or trusts ought to pay the tax.
In respect of taxation statutes, the Courts have held that the statues that regulate the assessment
of taxation must be construed as mandatory. In any case, if the establishing a uniform system of
procedure, to promote dispatch, non-compliance with such payer, the statute ought to be
interpreted as directory. In the connection of present provision relating to rendition of the
accounts, the date specified in that is to be dealt with as directory and not mandatory.
A mandatory provision in a statute is one the omission to follow which renders the proceedings
to which it relates void, while directory provision is one the observance of which is not

31 WILCOX V. BILLINGS, 200 KAN. 654 (1968),

32 MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY CO V NORMADIN [1917] AC 170
33 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 80G (5C) (1961)
18 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

necessary to the validity of the proceeding. 34 It is also said that when the provision of a statute is
the essence of the thing required to be done, it is mandatory 35; otherwise when it relates to form
and manner, and where an incident, or after jurisdiction acquired, it is directory merely. 36
Mandatory provision is one which must be observed, as distinguished from directory
provision, which leaves it optional with department or officer to which addressed to obey it or
not.37

34 JOHNSON V. PAUTLER 174 N.E.2D 675

35 KAVANAUGH V FARH, CCA .OKL; 74 F.2D 435, 437
36 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS BLUE OCEAN SEA TRANSPORT LTD.
2013 (3) TMI 374
37 SUPRA NOTE 32., KAVANAUGH
19 | P a g e

AMBIT OF DIRECTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW

CONCLUSION
Whether a provision is mandatory or declaratory in nature has often arisen in the court of law,
and it at times becomes very difficult to come to a settlement and decide which one to prefer. It is
more so because of contradictory consideration available for the court to refer. It one can settle to
the fact that, if such consideration is inconsistent with the real intent of the legislation behind the
enacted statute, the intention of the legislation shall prevail.
Mandatory provisions are obligation and impose consequences whereas directory provisions are
mere rules which if waived does not attract consequences. The words used in the provision to a
great extent can tell if it directory or mandatory. For example, If a statute does not declare a
contact made infringing upon a specific provision to be void, the law is declaratory. At the same
time where some particular compliance was required and that compliance was not performed, the
contract may be void.
No universal rule can be laid down for the construction of statute, as to whether mandatory
enactment shall be considered directory or obligatory with an implied nullification or
disobedience. It is the duty of the court to try to get the real intention of the legislature in
carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be constructed.

20 | P a g e