THE ROLE OF UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT AND EXPRESSIO UNIUS IN HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION: AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Statutory interpretation often involves the reconciliation of seemingly conflicting principles to uphold legislative intent. Two key maxims—Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat (a statute should be interpreted to give effect rather than render it void) and Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another)—frequently intersect in judicial reasoning. While the former promotes a purposive and expansive interpretation to sustain legislative functionality, the latter supports a restrictive approach by limiting the scope of statutory provisions based on explicit legislative choices. This paper examines how courts balance these maxims through the doctrine of harmonious construction, ensuring that statutory enforcement remains effective without extending its reach beyond legislative intent. It analyses landmark Indian Supreme Court cases such as G.P. Singh v. Union of India (1980) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981), where the Court navigated between these maxims to uphold statutory coherence. The study also explores State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese (1986) and K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1995), which illustrate the judiciary’s efforts to maintain legislative consistency without overriding express exclusions. By evaluating these cases, the research highlights the challenges and methodologies courts employ to ensure that statutes are neither excessively expanded nor unjustly restricted. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of judicial discretion in statutory interpretation and its implications for legislative drafting and legal reasoning in India.