LEGAL PRINCIPLE: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – Word ‘Shall’ – Mandatory or Directory

“Shall” in statutes creates mandatory obligations, not discretionary powers. When statutes use “shall” they: impose duties (not grant options), require compliance (not suggest it), and permit no discretion, variation, or circumvention. This interpretation serves: certainty (parties know what’s required), accountability (duty-holders must comply), and limiting administrative discretion (protecting against arbitrary action). “Mandatory” means: compliance is compulsory, non-compliance renders actions invalid, and no flexibility exists to deviate. However, context matters—sometimes “shall” may be directory if: the statute’s scheme shows flexibility intended, consequences of non-compliance aren’t specified as voiding actions, or the provision concerns administrative convenience rather than rights protection. Courts presume “shall” is mandatory but examine: statutory purpose, consequences intended, and whether treating it as directory would defeat the statute’s object. The contrast: “shall” = mandatory obligation; “may” = discretionary power. This principle guides interpretation of procedural and substantive statutory requirements, ensuring mandatory obligations receive appropriate weight.