Directory and Mandatory Provisions — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Directory and Mandatory Provisions

The word “shall” looks like an iron command — but it is not always. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. v Municipal Board, Rampur (1965), a rate was challenged because the notice was published in the wrong newspaper, though the statute said publication “shall” be in a particular way. The Supreme Court held the requirement directory, not mandatory — the object was served, so the breach did not void the rate. Whether “shall” means must (mandatory) or merely should (directory) is the question this topic answers, and it is a perennial favourite.

What is the mandatory / directory distinction?

Every statute lays down conditions for doing something — a time-limit, a form, a manner of giving notice. The question is: what happens if the condition is broken?

A mandatory provision must be obeyed exactly; non-compliance invalidates the act done. If you break it, the thing is void.
A directory provision ought to be obeyed, but non-compliance does not invalidate the act; it may attract some other consequence, but the act itself stands. Substantial compliance is enough.

The word is not decisive. “Shall” usually points to mandatory and “may” to directory — but the word alone does not settle it. Courts have read “shall” as directory and, occasionally, “may” as mandatory. The label turns not on the word but on the legislative intention, gathered from:

The object and purpose of the provision — what is the requirement for? If it goes to the essence of the thing (e.g. the very jurisdiction or a fundamental safeguard), it is mandatory; if it is a matter of convenience or procedure, it is likely directory.
The consequences of non-compliance — does the statute itself say the act is void if the condition is unmet? Express nullification signals mandatory. If a serious general inconvenience or injustice would follow from treating it as mandatory, courts lean to directory.
Public interest vs private convenience — whether the provision protects a public interest or a merely individual convenience.
Negative or prohibitory words (“no court shall…”, “shall not be valid unless…”) strongly indicate mandatory.

A useful rule of thumb: provisions prescribing the manner and form in which a public duty or power is to be exercised, or fixing a time for an official act, are often directory; provisions that are the condition of a right, a jurisdiction, or a penalty are usually mandatory.

When time-limits are involved. A time-limit imposed on a private party as a condition of his right (e.g. filing an appeal within limitation) is generally mandatory; a time-limit imposed on a public official for doing an act is often directory, so that public business is not defeated by delay.

💡 EXAM TIP — Never decide by the word “shall” alone

The trap. Candidates see “shall” and instantly write “mandatory”, or “may” and write “directory”, and stop there. The examiner is testing exactly the opposite — that the word is not decisive.

What to write. State the rule, then the test: “The court looks to the object of the provision and the consequences of non-compliance, not merely the word used; ‘shall’ can be directory and ‘may’ can be mandatory” — and anchor it to Raza Buland Sugar Co. v Municipal Board, Rampur (1965).

Why it scores. It shows you understand the reasoning, which is the whole point of the topic; a bare word-based answer reads as a first-timer’s guess.

The test (State of U.P. v Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1957): whether a provision is mandatory or directory depends on the intention of the legislature, gathered from the purpose of the provision and the consequences of non-compliance, not merely on the language.

In Simple Terms: A mandatory rule must be obeyed or the act is void; a directory rule should be obeyed but breach does not void the act. The word “shall” does not settle which it is — the court looks at the purpose of the provision and what would happen if breach voided everything.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — “Shall refer” to arbitration

Facts. Parties who agreed to arbitrate instead approach a consumer forum. One party says s.8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — under which a judicial authority “shall refer” the parties to arbitration — makes reference mandatory. The other reads “shall refer” as leaving a discretion.

Rule. Whether “shall” is mandatory or directory turns on the object and scheme of the Act, not the word alone; a provision that is the condition of a right or that gives effect to a bargain is generally mandatory.

Apply. Section 8 exists to hold parties to their arbitration agreement and oust the ordinary forum where a valid agreement and a timely application exist. Reading “shall refer” as merely directory would defeat that object and let a party wriggle out of its bargain.

Conclusion. The reference is mandatory where the statutory conditions are met — the forum must refer the parties to arbitration. “Shall refer read as discretionary” is the decoy.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Is the provision mandatory or directory?"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Do NOT decide by 'shall'/'may' alone"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Look at object & purpose"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Look at consequences of breach"]:::leaf
    B --> D{"Goes to the essence / a right / jurisdiction?"}:::dec
    D -->|"Yes"| E["MANDATORY -> breach voids the act"]:::leaf
    D -->|"No (mere manner/time)"| F["DIRECTORY -> breach does not void it"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef dec fill:#FFE8C2,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

State of U.P. v Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1957) — Art. 320(3)(c) (consultation with the Public Service Commission) held directory; the mandatory/directory question turns on intention and consequences.
Raza Buland Sugar Co. v Municipal Board, Rampur (1965) — the manner of publication held directory where the object was substantially achieved.
Sharif-ud-Din v Abdul Gani Lone (1980) — where the statute fixes a consequence for non-compliance, the provision is mandatory; otherwise the court weighs purpose and effect.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics