ejusdem generis

• “of the same kind.”

• where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or
phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and
apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those
expressly mentioned
• must be applied with great caution, because it implies a departure
from the specific meaning of the word.
• must be controlled by the fundamental rule that statutes have an
objective and the same has to be fulfilled.
• PRIMARY REQUIREMENT- that the specific words are all of genus. In
which case the general words have to be restricted to that genus.
• For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors,
motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use
ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include
airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.
PRECONDITIONS:
• There will be a string of specific words or enumeration
• A general word/ phrase shall be attached with the string or the enumeration
• The specific words/phrase form a genus
• The general word/phrase shall take the colour of the genus from the string of
specific words
• There is no indication of a different legislative intent
The major confusion!
Noscitor-a-sociis
• “association”
• when the legislature has used a word
in the statute which bears many
meaning and therefore, cause
ambiguity in understanding the same
then it has to be understood in the
context of the associated words i.e.
know the words from the association.
• Wider
• to interpret questionable words in the
statutes.
• things should fit in with the realistic of
those other things.
Ejusdem generis
• “of the same kind”
• when a general word follows specific
word of distinct category then the
general words may be given a
restricted meaning of the same
category.
• Narrower
• to interpret loosely written statutes
• talks about same kind of things &
does not include stuffs that is
different in essential nature
Brownsea Haven Properties Ltd. V. Poole Corp.
[1958] Ch. 574
• S. 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 states: “The Commissioner
may from time to time make orders for the route to be observed by
all carts, carriages, horses and persons, and for preventing
obstruction of the streets…..in all times of public processions,
rejoicings, or illumination, and in any case where the streets are
thronged or liable to be obstructed.”
• Facts: Corporation made an order preserving a one-way traffic system
in two streets for a period of 6 months (for regulating traffic on those
streets)
Decision
• “In any case” should be confined to special events similar to the
enumeration to which it is attached.
Indian City Properties Ltd. & Anr. v. The Municipal
Commissioner of Greater Bombay and Anr (AIR 2005 SC
3802
• Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
authorized the commissioner to acquire land for the purposes of road
widening. Such land if occupied by a ‘building’ cannot be acquired.
However if there exists a platform, verandah, step or ‘some other
structure external to a building’, such portion of the land may be
acquired

• Issue: Whether Servants Room, Pump Room, Out House standing on

a plot are ‘building’ or ‘some other structure external to a building’
for the purposes of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888?
Decision
• The Court held that “some other structure external to the building”
has to be read ejusdem generis to the words platform, verandah and
step, which would lead to an inference that they are not independent
structures, but are attached to the outside and form an inessential
part of the building. Therefore to be a building, the structure would
have to be an independent permanent structure. In the present case,
all structures in question i.e., Servants Room, Pump Room, Out House
were all independent structures standing on their own and hence not
some other structure external to a building. All the above mentioned
structures were held to be buildings and hence outside the purview
of Sec. 299. The order of the commissioner to acquire the land was
quashed.
US V. Alpers 338 U.S. 680 70 S.Ct. 352. 94 L.ED.
457
• The Respondent in the case in hand was charged with selling of
phonograph records, the phonograph records were sold interstate
between one state and another state, there was a statute in place
Sec. 245 of the Criminal Code which prohibited the shipment of any
“obscene book, pamphlet, motion pictures, paper, letter, writing,
print, or other material of indecent character, the respondent in the
case in hand did not object to selling of indecent phonograph records
but interestingly claimed that he is not liable under the Section
• Issue- Whether the Respondent is liable under Section. 245 of the
Criminal Code?
• Application of the Rule- It was the argument of the Respondent that
when the section is read on the whole the word phonograph cannot
be read under the Section as a phonograph record is neither a book,
or pamphlet, or motion picture or paper or letter or writing or print,
the respondent applied the principle and argued that phonograph
cannot be read under the term “any other material” as phonograph
does not come within the genus of the same class. The Court went on
to state that the statute is not all inclusive in nature and it does not
mean to suggest that phonograph records cannot be read within the
code.
• Decision- The Respondent was found to be liable under Section 245
of the Criminal Code