Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nasiruddin and
Others Versus Sita Ram Agarwal; AIR 2003 Supreme Court
1543, has held that it is well settled that the real intention of
the legislation must be gathered from the language used. It
may be true that the use of the expression ''shall or may' is not
decisive for arriving at a finding as to whether statute is
directory or mandatory. But the intention of the legislature
must be found out from the scheme of the Act. It is also equally
well settled that when negative words are used the courts will
presume that the intention of the legislature was that the
provisions are mandatory in character. It has further been held
that if an act is required to be performed by a private person
within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory
but when a public functionary is required to perform a public
function within a time frame, the same will be held to be
directory unless the consequences therefor are specified. The
relevant paragraphs 38 and 39 are extracted below:-
39. Yet there is another aspect of the matter which
cannot be lost sight of. It is a well-settled principle that if
an act is required to be performed by a private person
within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be
mandatory but when a public functionary is required to
perform a public function within a time-frame, the same
will be held to be directory unless the consequences
therefor are specified. In Sutherland's Statutory
Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol. 3, at p. 107 it is pointed out
that a statutory direction to private individuals should
generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is
just the opposite to that which obtains with respect to
public officers. Again, at p. 109, it is pointed out that
often the question as to whether a mandatory or directory
construction should be given to a statutory provision may
be determined by an expression in the statute itself of the
result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision.
At p. 111 it is stated as follows: