Legal Dictionary of Pakistan
Quick lookup for English, Urdu, and Latin legal terms used in Pakistani jurisprudence.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. a Also termed Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius or enumeratio unius est exclusao alterius.
expressio unius est exclusio alterius
[Law Latin] A canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative. ( For example, the rule that "each citizen is entitled to vote" implies that noncitizens are not entitled to vote. - Also termed inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; expressum facit cessare tacitum. Cf. EJUSDEM GENERIS; NOSCITUR A SOCIIS; RULE OF RANK. "Several Latin maxims masquerade as rules of interpretation while doing nothing more than describing results reached by other means. The best example is probably expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which is a rather elaborate, mysterious sounding, and anachronistic way of describing the negative implication. Far from being a rule, it is not even lexicographically accurate, because it is simply not true, generally, that the mere express conferral of a right or privilege in one kind of situation implies the denial of the equivalent right or privilege in other kinds. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, and whether it does or does not depends on the particular circumstances of context. Without contextual support, therefore, there is not even a mild presumption here. Accordingly, the maxim is at best a description, after the fact, of what the court has discovered from context." Reed Dickerson, The Interpretation and Application of Statutes 234-35 (1975). "The canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius is ... based on the assumption of legislative omniscience, because it would make sense only if all omissions in legislative drafting were deliberate. Although this canon seemed dead for a while, it has been resurrected by the Supreme Court to provide a basis for refusing to create private remedies for certain statutory violations. Its recent disparagement by a unanimous Court [in Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 386 n.23, 103 S.Ct. 683, 690 n. 23 (1983)] puts its future in some doubt but more likely confirms that judicial use of canons of construction is opportunistic." Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 282 (1985).