The maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterious’ (express mention of one thing excludes others) has been called a valuable servant but a dangerous master. In Mary Angel and others vs. State of T.N., Supreme Court observed as follows on the scope of the maxim:
“19. Further, for the rule of interpretation on the basis of the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius“, it has been considered in the decision rendered by the Queen’s Bench in the case of Dean v. Wiesengrund [(1955) 2 QB 120 : (1955) 2 All ER 432]. The Court considered the said maxim and held that after all it is no more than an aid to construction and has little, if any, weight where it is possible to account for the “inclusio unius” on grounds other than intention to effect the “exclusio alterius”.
Thereafter, the Court referred to the following passage from the case of Colquhoun v. Brooks [(1887) 19 QBD 400 : 57 LT 448] QBD at 406 wherein the Court called for its approval- “… ‘The maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” has been pressed upon us. I agree with what is said in the court below by Wills, J. about this maxim. It is often a valuable servant, but a dangerous master to follow in the construction of statutes or documents. 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.’
In my opinion, the application of the maxim here would lead to inconsistency and injustice, and would make Section 14(1) of the Act of 1920 uncertain and capricious in its operation.”
The aforesaid maxim was referred to by Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [(1972) 2 SCC 560]. The Court in that case considered the question whether there was or was not an implied power to hold an enquiry in the circumstances of the case in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules and referred to the aforesaid passage “the maxim is often a valuable servant, but a dangerous master …” and held that the rule is subservient to the basic principle that courts must endeavour to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose, and then adopt a rule of construction which effectuates rather than one that may defeat these. Moreover, the rule of prohibition by necessary implication could be applied only where a specified procedure is laid down for the performance of a duty.
In the case of Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority [AIR 1960 SC 801 : (1960) 3 SCR 177] Supreme Court observed that the 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.
Further, in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh [AIR 1957 SC 444 : 1957 SCR 370, 389] SCR at p. 389 the Court referred to the following passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., pp. 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.”
In Ramdev Food Products Pvt v. State of Gujrat (2015), the court was of the view that the maxim does not apply for interpretation of Section 202 (3) for the reasons that follow. In our view, the correct interpretation of the provision is that merely negating the power of arrest to a person other than police officer does not mean that police could exercise such power. The emphasis in the provision is to empower such person to exercise other powers of incharge of a police station than the power of arrest. As regards the power of police to arrest, there are express provisions dealing with the same and power of police to arrest is not derived from or controlled by Section 202 (3). The said power is available under Section 41 or under a warrant