Statutory interpretation is guided by several canons that help courts decipher legislative intent. One such secondary rule of interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It is a Latin maxim which means “the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”
In other words, when the legislature explicitly mentions one or more things, the courts infer it in the way that anything not mentioned was meant to be excluded. The principle of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is not absolute. However, it is a powerful interpretive tool when the wording of a statute appears exhaustive.
Application of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
To understand a rule of statutory interpretation, it is crucial to understand where and when exactly it applies. The Courts usually invoke expressio unius when:
- A statute provides an explicit list of items, persons, or circumstances.
- The context shows that the list is meant to be exhaustive, not illustrative.
- The legislature appears to have made a conscious choice to include certain things and omit others.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Examples
- A statute provides that:
“Licenses may be granted for teaching, research, and training.”
A person applies for a license for commercial consultancy. Since consultancy is not listed, the court may conclude that it is excluded, unless context suggests otherwise.
- A municipal law allows shops to remain open on Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.
If a shopkeeper keeps the shop open on a weekday, he cannot claim protection, because the explicit mention of certain days implies the exclusion of all others.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Case Laws
Tempest v Kilner (1846)
The Statute of Frauds required certain “goods, wares and merchandise” to be in writing for enforceability. The court applied Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius to hold that stocks and shares were not included because the statute clearly specified only three categories.
R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831)
The Poor Relief Act 1601 imposed duties on “lands, houses, and coal mines.” The court held that other types of mines (limestone mines) were excluded.
Dean v Wiesengrund [1955]
The matter pertains to the Court of England and Wales. A statute which required registration for “dealers in old metals, old metal implements, and old machinery” was held not to apply to dealers in second-hand cars.
Indian Case Laws
M/S Swastik Gases P. Ltd v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd (2013)
The Apex Court explained that “the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius comes into play as there is nothing to indicate to the contrary. This legal maxim means that expression of one is the exclusion of another. By making a provision that the agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata, the parties have impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other courts.”
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989)
In this case, the Apex Court explained the applicability of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius in a contract. In the words of the Supreme Court: “When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract, would bind the parties and unless absence of ad idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius –expression of one is the exclusion of another –may be applied.”
D.R. Venkatachalam v Dy. Transport Commissioner, (1977)
In this case, the Court regarded the rule of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius as “a valuable servant but a dangerous master” in the case of Colgunoun v. Brooks. The Court explained that “That rule says that an express- ly laid, down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition of doing it in any other way.”
Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. the Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad (1960)
In this case, the Apex Court clarified that the rule of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius applies only where there is a need to ascertain the intention of the legislature. Where there is clarity in the provision itself, the maxim is not applicable.
Limitations of the Maxim
Courts often caution that this rule is not absolute. It may be disregarded if:
- The context indicates that the list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
- Exclusion would lead to absurd or unjust results.
- Legislative intent suggests otherwise.
Conclusion
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius remains a significant canon of statutory interpretation. It guides courts in determining what the legislature intended to exclude by examining what it deliberately included. However, like all interpretive tools, it must be applied with caution and context, not mechanically. This principle ensures that judicial interpretation respects legislative choices, preserving the careful balance between statutory text and judicial reasoning.
