May and shall – Where the Legislature uses two words  “may” and “shall” in two different parts of the same provision, prima facie it would appear that the Legislature manifested its intension to make one part directory and another mandatory. But that by itself is not decisive. The power of the Court still to ascertain the real intension of the Legislature by carefully examining the scope of statute to find out whether the provision is directory or mandatory remains unimpaired even where both the words are used in the same provision. In interpreting the provisions the exercise undertaken by the Court is to make explicit the intention of the Legislative which enacted the legislation. It is not for the Court to reframe the legislation for the very good reason that the powers to “legislate” have not been conferred on the Court. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality of a legislative measure, the Court can take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and also assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of the legislation.

Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933