By Vijay Kumar

The High Court’s view was based on an application of the rule of construction that where a mode of performing a duty is laid down by law it must be performed in that mode or not at all. This rule flows from the maxim : “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”. But, as was pointed out by Wills, J. in Colquhoun v. Brooks, (1888) 21 QBD 52 at p. 62 this maxim “is often a valuable servant, but a dangerous master.........”. 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. – Supreme Court of India

where it is doubtful whether a stated term does or does not include a certain class, and words of extension are added which cover some only of the members of the class, it is implied that the remaining members of the class are excluded” (Expressio unius principle : words of extension) – CESTAT