What are Directory and Mandatory Provisions in Interpreting Statutes?

Answer 1

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY STATUTES

Whether an enactment is mandatory or directory depends on the scope and the object of the statute. Where the enactment demands the performance of certain provision without any option or discretion it will be called peremptory or mandatory.
On the other hand if the acting authority is vested with discretion, choice or judgment the enactment is directory.
In deciding whether the provision is directory or mandatory, one has to ascertain whether the power is coupled with a duty of the person to whom it is given to exercise it. If so, then it is imperative.
Generally the intention of the legislature is expressed by mandatory and directory verbs such as 'may', 'shall' and 'must'.
However, sometimes the legislature uses such words interchangeably. In such cases, the interpreter of the law has to consider the intention of the legislature.

If two interpretations are possible then the one which preserves the constitutionality of the particular statutory provisions should be adopted and the one which renders it unconstitutional and void should be rejected.
Non-compliance of mandatory provisions has penal consequences where as non-compliance of directory provisions would not furnish any cause of action or ground of challenge.

Distinction
It is one of the rules of construction that a provision is not mandatory unless non-compliance with it is made penal (Jagannath v Jaswant singh). Mandatory provisions should be fulfilled and obeyed exactly, whereas in case of provisions of directory enactments substantial compliance is satisfiable.
Test for determining whether a provision in a statute is directory or mandatory.
Lord Campbell observed that there can be no universal applications as to when a statutory provisions be regarded as merely directory and when mandatory.
Maxwell says "that it is impossible to lay down any general rule for determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory'. The supreme court of India is stressing time and again that the question whether a statute is mandatory or directory, is not capable of generalization and 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. In other words it depends on the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed.
The intent of the legislature must be ascertained not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also from its nature, design and consequences which would follow from construing it in one form or another.

'May', 'shall' and 'must'.
The words 'may', 'shall' and 'must' should initially be deemed to have been used in their natural and ordinary sense. May signifies permission and implies that the authority has been allowed discretion. In state of UP v Jogendra Singh, the Supreme Court observed that 'there is no doubt that the word 'may' generally does not mean 'must' or 'shall'. But it is well settled that the word 'may' is capable of meaning 'must' or 'shall' in the light of context. It is also clear that when a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 'may' should be construed to mean a command ( Smt. Sudir Bala Roy v West Bengal).
"May" will have compulsory force if a requisite condition has to be filled. Cotton L.J observed that 'May" can never mean "must" but when any authority or body has a power to it by the word 'May' it becomes its duty to exercise that power.
'Shall'- in the normal sense imports command. It is well settled that the use of the word 'shall' does not always mean that the enactment is obligatory or mandatory. It depends upon the context in which the word 'shall' occurs and the other circumstances. Unless an interpretation leads to some absurd or inconvenient consequences or contradicts with the intent of the legislature the court shall interpret the word 'shall' in mandatory sense.
Must- is doubtlessly a word of command.

Specific Terminologies
99% of negative terms are mandatory; affirmative terms are mostly mandatory where guiding principle for vesting of powers depends on context.
In procedural statutes both negative and affirmative are mandatory. Aids to construction for determination of the character of words can be used.

Time fixation
If time fixation is provided to the executive, it is supposed to be permissive with regard to the issue of time only. However, provisions regarding time may be considered mandatory if the intention of the legislature appears to impose literal compliance with the requirement of time.
Statutes regulating tax and election proceeding are generally considered permissive. However the Supreme Court held in Manila mohan lal v Syed Ahamed, whenever a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply will have consequence. It would be difficult to accept the argument that the failure to comply with the required said requirement should lead to any other consequence - See more at: http://www.legalquest.in/index.php/students/law-study-materials/38-interpretation-of-statutes/389-mandatory-and-directory-statute.html#sthash.k9NC8gRp.dpuf