Interpreting 'May' in Statutory Language: Discretionary vs. Mandatory Meaning

Understanding the Legal Interpretation of 'May' in Statutory Provisions

The interpretation of "may" within statutory provisions has profound implications and often raises debates regarding whether it denotes discretionary or mandatory intent. Utilizing purposive construction aims to promote justice and clarify legal structures. This article explores the intricacies surrounding this interpretation, backed by pertinent court rulings.

The Significance of 'May' vs. 'Shall' in Statutory Language

The differentiation between "may" and "shall" is vital in statutory drafting. Generally, provisions utilizing "may" are viewed as discretionary or directory. However, there is no definitive guideline categorizing "may" strictly as discretionary or mandatory.

Key Factors for Interpretation (2024–2025)

• Public vs. Private Rights: Provisions impacting public rights, such as environmental clearances, are more likely to be mandatory.
• Judicial Discretion: Courts increasingly apply proportionality to balance literal versus purposive interpretations, as illustrated in Nageswara Rao v. Union of India (2023).
• Digital Compliance: E-governance mandates, including online filings under GST, often interpret procedural "may" as compulsory.

Ambiguity in the Meaning of 'May'

The interpretation of "may" can often lead to confusion, particularly when it creates ambiguity or conflicts with the statute's intended purpose. Courts address these challenges by applying the Rule of Purposive Interpretation, especially when a straightforward reading results in absurdity, injustice, or inconsistency. This interpretation method is most relevant in two scenarios:

1. Unclear Language: When the wording lacks clarity.
2. Intent-Focused Meaning: To derive meanings consistent with the statute's objectives.

The purposive interpretation prioritizes readings that align more closely with the legislative goals of the statute.

Instances Where 'May' Suggests Mandatory Intent

In certain instances, "may" is used courteously, yet the actual intention is to create a mandatory obligation. A literal reading of "may" in these cases can generate uncertainty and obstruct the accomplishment of the statute's objectives. Therefore, applying a purposive interpretation is essential for elucidating legislative intent.

Every statutory provision is designed to meet specific aims in accordance with the broader objectives of the statute. Language within these provisions should effectively facilitate these intended outcomes. Interpretations that undermine the statute’s purpose should be eschewed.

Key Considerations in Interpreting "May"

• Legislative Intent: Courts often prioritize the purpose of the statute over its literal wording. For example, in Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that "may" can impose a duty if mandated by the statute’s objectives.

• Consequences of Interpretation: If treating "may" as discretionary would result in injustice or harm to the public, courts may consider it as mandatory, as established in State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal.

• Harmonious Construction: "May" should be construed alongside other provisions to avoid contradictions. If "shall" is found elsewhere in the statute, "may" is likely to be discretionary (G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation).

Factors to Consider for Purposive Interpretation

Before applying the Rule of Purposive Interpretation to the term "may," the following factors should be evaluated:

1. Intent Behind the Provision: Understanding the rationale for employing "may."
2. Legislative Goals: Identifying the broader aims of the statute.
3. Plain Meaning of 'May': Assessing its straightforward interpretation.

Assess whether the plain meaning of "may" leads to:

• Ambiguity: Does it create confusion?
• Obstruction of Purpose: Does it hinder the statute’s objectives?
• Unreasonable Outcomes: Does it result in absurdity, injustice, or inconsistency?

If any of these conditions are met, "may" should be interpreted purposively to fulfill the objectives of the statute and its provisions.

Conclusion

There is no absolute rule categorizing "may" strictly as discretionary or mandatory. A purposive interpretation is vital to accurately reflect legislative intent and align with the overall goals of the statute. This interpretive approach guarantees that the law operates fairly and effectively, ensuring clarity and the promotion of justice.