maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ - Indian Laws - General

Maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius As per De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action , fourth edition (at page 187) : (3) Where legislation expressly requires notice and hearing for certain purposes but imposes no procedural requirement for other purposes. Here the maxim expressio unius est exclusion alterius may be invoked to deny a right to notice and hearing in a context where the statute or the rules are silent. But this maxim, like so many other aids to interpretation, certainly requires to be watched , it may be a valuable servant, but a dangerous master to follow... The exclusio is often the result of inadvertence or accident, and the maxim ought not to be applied, when its application, having regard to the subject-matter to which it is to be applied, leads to inconsistency or injustice. [ M/S NAGINDAS KASTURCHAND- 2022 (4) TMI 1284 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] In SRI JAWAHAR SINGH, AMAR NATH SHAW- 2015 (8) TMI 1304 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that- maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded. In the case of Parbhani Transport Co-op Society Ltd. v. R.T.A. Aurangabad- 1960 (3) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT , this Court observed that- maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a maxim for ascertaining the intention of the legislature and where the statutory language is plain and the meaning clear, there is no scope for applying. In Harish Chander Vajpai v. Triloki Singh- 1956 (12) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT , the Court referred to the following passage from the Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, pages 316-317: Provisions sometimes found in statutes, enacting imperfectly or for particular cases only that which was already and more widely the law, have occasionally furnished ground for the contention that an intention to alter the general law was to be inferred from the partial or limited enactment, resting on the maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius. But that maxim is inapplicable in such cases. The only inference which a court can draw from such superfluous provisions (which generally find a place in Acts to meet unfounded objections and idle doubts), is that ,the Legislature was either ignorant or unmindful of the real state of the law, or that it acted under the influence of excessive caution.