May, Prima facie the word 'may' must be given its ordinary and natural meaning. Primarily it is permissive in its meaning and until the contrary is established the word 'may' in section 6 of the Criminal (Amendment) Act could be read to mean that 'It shall be lawful'. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act, which would compel a court to give to the word 'may' in section 6 of the Act a meaning other than its ordinary meaning and to interpret it as 'shall', State v. Surajdeo Sinha, 1953 BLJR 571: 1954 Cr LJ 139: 1954 Pat 80.
The word 'may' does not always import that the matter is discretionary with the court in exercising its functions. Similarly, 'shall' sometimes imports that the matter is entirely discretionary with the court in exercise of its functions, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, 1963 SC 1613; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manbodan Lal, 1957 SC 912; Kamar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1965 SC 971; Banwari Lal v. State of Bihar, 1961 SC 849; Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1957 SC 737. [See also Civil Procedure Code, 1908, s. 39]
The word 'may' in Article 226 of the Constitution has reference to sanction and does not control the opening words and hence the words 'subject to' cannot be construed as 'notwithstanding', Matwal Chand v. District Magistrate, Badaun, 1953 All LJ 395: 1953 All WR (HC) 431: 1953 All 687.
The word 'may' occurring in the expression 'as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission alleged' in section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code does not entitle the prosecution to exercise any discretion, State v. Govindan Thami Bhaskaran Thami, 1957 Trav-Co. 29 (DB).
The word 'may' used in s. 5(1) of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 in the context cannot mean 'shall' or 'must', Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1563: (1963) 1 Supp SCR 220.
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 the context. Where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 'may' which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command, State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618: (1964) 2 SCR 197.
Normally, the word 'may' is used to grant a discretion and not to indicate a mandatory direction, Sahodara Devi v. Government of India, AIR 1971 SC 1599: (1972) 3 SCC 156: (1971) Supp SCR 230.
The word 'may', cannot be read as 'must be', Dharamdeo Rai v. Ramnagina Rai, AIR 1972 SC 928: (1972) 1 SCC 460: (1972) 3 SCR 111.
The word 'may' in sub-s. (2) should be read as 'shall' in the context of sub-s. (3), Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 2650: (1974) 3 SCC 330: (1974) 1 SCR 589.
The word 'may', used before 'stay' in s. 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 really means 'may' and not 'must' or 'shall' in such a context. In fact, it is not quite accurate to say that the word 'may', by itself, acquires the meaning of 'must' or 'shall' sometimes. This word, however, always signifies a conferment of power, The Officer Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 740: (1977) 2 SCC 166: (1977) 2 SCR 964.
The word 'may' used in s. 64(1) of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 acquires the force of 'must', Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to Government of West Bengal v. Abani Maity, AIR 1979 SC 1029: (1979) 4 SCC 85: (1979) 3 SCR 472. [Bengal Excise Act, (5 of 1909), s. 64]
The word 'may' in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, Order 15 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 merely vested power in the Court to strike off the defence. It does not oblige it to do so in every case of default, Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1657: (1981) 3 SCC 486: (1982) 2 SCR 124.
The word 'may' confers discretion, N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663.