Other Maxims of Interpretation

Beyond the rules of language in Topic 15, courts rely on a set of Latin maxims that express settled assumptions about how legislation works: that express mention excludes the unmentioned, that special laws prevail over general ones, that later laws prevail over earlier ones, that statutes should be made to work, that delegated power cannot be passed on, and that no one should suffer for the act of the court or be compelled to do the impossible. This note explains each maxim, its limits and its leading authority.

1. Maxims on Scope and Conflict

Figure 1: Four maxims on the reach and priority of provisions

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

• Meaning. The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others; where a statute lists the cases it covers, others are presumed excluded.
• Caution. In Colquhoun v Brooks (1888) the maxim was described as a valuable servant but a dangerous master: it yields where the omission was accidental or the context shows a wider intention.

Generalia specialibus non derogant

• Meaning. A general provision does not override a special provision on the same subject; the special provision is treated as an exception to the general.
• J.K. Cotton Mills (1961). The Supreme Court applied the maxim to resolve a conflict between two clauses of the same order, holding that the special clause prevailed over the general one in its field.
• LIC v D.J. Bahadur (1981). The Court held that what is special or general depends on the subject matter: for industrial disputes the Industrial Disputes Act is special, while the LIC Act is general.

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant

• Meaning. A later law repeals an earlier law that is contrary to it; the basis of implied repeal (Topic 22)
• Zaverbhai Amaidas (1954). A later Central law on the same matter was held to impliedly repeal an inconsistent State law under Article 254(2) (Topic 30)
• Limit. A later general law does not ordinarily repeal an earlier special law (generalia specialibus)

Ut res magis valeat quam pereat

• Meaning. It is better that a thing should have effect than be made void; where two readings are possible, prefer the one that makes the statute workable.
• Tinsukhia Electric (1989). The Supreme Court said courts strongly lean against a construction that reduces a statute to futility, and prefer one that makes it effective.

2. Maxims on Power, Courts and Impossibility

Figure 2: Three maxims on delegation, courts and impossibility

• Delegatus non potest delegare. A person to whom power is delegated cannot sub-delegate it unless the statute permits. In A.K. Roy v State of Punjab (1986) a sub-delegation of the power to authorise prosecutions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, not permitted by the statute, was held invalid.
• Actus curiae neminem gravabit. An act of the court shall prejudice no one. In A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak (1988) the Supreme Court recalled its own earlier direction that had prejudiced the accused, relying on this maxim.
• Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law does not compel a person to do the impossible. In Raj Kumar Dey v Tarapada Dey (1987) the period during which an arbitration award was held in court custody under an injunction was excluded in computing the time for its registration, applying this maxim together with actus curiae.

3. Frequently Asked Questions

What does generalia specialibus non derogant mean?

It means that a general provision does not derogate from a special one. Where a general law and a special law deal with the same subject, the special law prevails in its own field, even if the general law is later. In LIC v D.J. Bahadur (1981) the Supreme Court held that whether a law is special or general depends on the subject matter in issue: for industrial disputes, the Industrial Disputes Act was special.

What is the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat?

It means that a thing should be made to have effect rather than be made void. Where a provision is capable of two readings, one of which would make it workable and the other futile, the court prefers the former. The Supreme Court applied this in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co v State of Assam (1989), leaning against a construction that reduces a statute to futility.

How are actus curiae neminem gravabit and lex non cogit ad impossibilia applied?

The first means that no one should suffer because of an act of the court; the second, that the law does not require a person to do what is impossible. In Raj Kumar Dey v Tarapada Dey (1987) the Supreme Court applied both to exclude, from the time allowed for registering an arbitration award, the period during which the award was in court custody under an injunction.

4. Related Topics

• Topic 15: Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur a Sociis. The maxims of language.
• Topic 22: Repeal of Statutes. Implied repeal in detail.