Ejusdem Generis

Introduction
For knowing the meaning of the statute, the statutory interpretation is done
by the Courts. There are many rules for the interpretation of the statutes.
One of them is “the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis”. This doctrine is applied
when there are some specified words which are been followed by the general
words. If there is any ambiguity in the meaning of the general words then
this doctrine is applied. This doctrine provides that the general words which
follow the specified words will be restricts to the same class of the specified
words. This is very important doctrine through which the purpose or the
objectives of the statute can be achieved and a proper justice can be given.

In this Article, the following topics will be covered: what is interpretation of

statutes and the rules of interpretations, then the meaning of ejusdem
generis doctrine will be discussed and its necessity and when it is applied,
next thing which is discussed is the essentials of the doctrine which will cover
what conditions are necessary for its application, next the limitation of this
doctrine is been provided so as to when is doctrine is not applicable. At last
the improper use of this doctrine by the courts is been discussed that how
courts does not use this doctrine properly sometime and thus justice is not
provided.

Statement of problem
The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is a canon of interpretation, which is used
by the Courts for providing the Justice, by interpreting according to the
intention of the legislation so as to make the provision of legislation clear and
unambiguous and thus fulfilling the purpose of the legislation. But the matter
of concern is that whether the Courts are using the doctrine of Ejusdem
Generis in a proper manner, to properly interpret the legislations and fulfill
its purpose or the Courts are using this doctrine improperly where it is not
required thus defeating the purpose and causing the miscarriage to the
Justice?

Objectives
• To understand the meaning of the statutory interpretation.
• To understand the meaning of “Ejusdem Generis”.
• To study the applicability and the non-applicability of the doctrine of
Ejusdem Generis.
• To study the cases where this doctrine were applied and where not.
 Ejusdem Generis
• To examine whether the Courts are using this doctrine in a proper
manner or not.

Hypothesis
• For the application of this doctrine the general words must follow
the specific words and the specific words must necessarily constitute
a genus/class
• There must be an intention of the statute for restricting the general
word to the genus/class of the specified words it follows.
• As this doctrine has to be used very cautiously by the Courts but
sometimes the Courts may not use this doctrine properly and apply
it where it is not necessary thus defeating the purpose of the statute
and causing a miscarriage to Justice.

Research questions
• What is Ejusdem Generis?
• When this doctrine can be applied and when it cannot?
• Does the Court apply this doctrine of ejusdem generis properly or
not?

Interpretation of statutes and rules of

interpretation
“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is
significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that
underlies it” – Salmond

Parliament creates the Law and then those Laws are interpreted by the
Judges by the use of the canons of Statutory Interpretations. While drafting
the statues draftsmen makes sure that those statutes are not ambiguous and
clear. However, those statutes can include the words which have uncertain
meanings and with the progression of the society, the old statutes may
include words which are not used in the present day. Further, Parliament
may have left some errors unnoticed. Hence it is required by the Judges to
interpret the statutes.

The right understanding of the legislation is known as the Interpretation of

statutes. For the determination of the intent of the legislation, this process is
 Ejusdem Generis
used. As the purpose of the Court is not only the reading of the legislation,
but also to understand its intent and in a meaning way to apply it. The
objective behind the statutory interpretation is to clarify the ambiguous
words and their meaning, according to the intention of the legislation, which
was not clear before the interpretation.

It is not expected by the Courts to arbitrarily interpret the stats. Hence,

there are certain principles of interpretations, which are exercised by the
Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’ or ‘the
canons of interpretations’. These rules of interpretations are:

Primary rules
• The Literal Rule.
• Mischief Rule : Heydon’s Rule
• Golden Rule.
• Harmonious Construction
• Rule of beneficial construction
• Rule of exceptional construction

Secondary rules
• Noscitur a sociis

• Ejusdem Generis
• Reddendo Singula Singulis
In this Article, a further and detailed discussion will be on the “principle of
ejusdem generis”, which is one of the principles of the rules of
interpretations.

Doctrine of ejusdem generis

Meaning and definition

‘Ejusdem Generis’ is a Latin term and the meaning of it is “of the same kind
and nature”.
 Ejusdem Generis

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition, 2004.), “the

principle of Ejusdem Generis is where general words follow an enumeration
of persons or things by particular and specific words. Not only these general
words are construed but also held as applying only to persons or things of
the same general kind as those specifically enumerated.”

This doctrine is also called Lord Tenterden’s Rule (See here), which is an
ancient doctrine. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis provides that when a list
of specific words are being followed by the general words, the general words
are interpreted in a way so as to restrict them to include the items or
things which will be of same type as those of the specific words. In other
words, “where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers
to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of
persons or things specifically listed.” (See here) For example if a law makes
reference to cars, trucks, tractors, bikes and other motor-powered vehicles,
then the general word which is ‘other motor powered vehicles’ will not
include any planes or ships because the specific words preceding are of the
kind of land transports and when doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied then
that general word will be restricted to includes the things of same category
as that of the specific words.

In case of Evans v. Cross [(1938) 1 KB 694], the Court had applied the
ejusdem generis rule. The issue was in relation to the interpretation of the
word “other devices”. It was under the definition of “traffic signals”
under Section 48(9) Road Traffic Act, 1930, to include “all signals, warning
sign posts, signs, or other devices”. The Court held that a painted line on a
road cannot be included in the “other devices” as a traffic signs because
devices are here indicating a thing, whereas painted line on a road is not.

Need for the doctrine of ejusdem generis

The need for interpretation of statute by the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis
arises when-

• There is ambiguity in the language of the provisions of statutes, or

• When in the provision, there is a possibility of two views, or
• The meaning which the provision of a statute gives, defeats the
purpose of the statute.
There is no need for the interpretation if in the language there is no
ambiguity and it is clear. (See here)
 Ejusdem Generis
WHEN APPLIED: Unless the context requires, the natural meaning should
be given to the general words normally. In the case of Lilawati Bai v.
Bombay State, 1957 Supreme Court (See here), the Court observed that
“where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not
require restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, the
Court must give those words their plain and ordinary meaning.”

But when on reading, it is found that there is some ambiguity in the

provisions of the statute and the intent of the statute is to restrict the
general words to the category of the specifics words, then this doctrine of
ejusdem generis is applied. Therefore, when general words follows the
specified words and those specified words have a genus/category then the
general words will be restricted to the same genus/category. This is done
because the legislation had shown it intention by using such words of
class/category and is the Court will go in contrary to that intention and gives
wider meaning to the general words then the purpose of the legislation will
be defeated.

Ejusdem generis: a facet of noscitur a

sociis
As been observed by the Court in the case of Maharashtra University of
Health and others Vs Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Others, 2010
Supreme Court (See here) “soccis” is a Latin word, which means “society”.
“Noscitur a sociis” is a Latin maxim which means that “the term in a statute
is to be recognized by the associated words”. The doctrine of ejusdem
generis is a facet of Noscitur a sociis. “Therefore, when general words
are juxtaposed with specific words, general words cannot be read in isolation.
Their color and their contents are to be derived from their context.” Same
observation was been made by the Court in the case of Viscount Simonds
in Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, (1957) AC
436 at 461 of the report.

Essentials of the doctrine of ejusdem

generis
In the case of Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, 1972
Supreme Court (See here) and Uttar Pradesh State Electicity Board v.
Harishanker, 1979 Supreme Court (See here) the five essential
conditions for the application of this rule were laid. “The conditions or the
elements are as follows:
 Ejusdem Generis
1. The statute contains an enumeration of specific words,
2. The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category;
3. That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;
4. The general terms follow the enumeration; and
5. There is no indication of a different legislative intent.”
Thus, it can be seen that for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem
generis, there has to an enumeration of specific words and those words
should necessarily be of a class or a genus and there such genus or class
should not be exhausted. Also such specific words must be followed by the
general words. And most importantly there was no contrary intention of the
legislation. That means that the intention of the legislation was there to
restrict the general words by the doctrine of ejusdem generis.

As can be seen from the above discussion the most two important elements
for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis are: the specific words
should constitute a particular class or genus and the intention of the
legislation should be there for such restriction of the general words.

Class or genus of the specific words

In order to invoke the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis for its application, a
distinct ‘category’ or ‘genus’ must be present. “The specific words must apply
not to different objects of the widely different character but to something
which can be called a class or kind of object” (See here). This implies that
the enumeration of specific words preceding the general should necessarily
constitute a distinct genus: it must be of some class. Then only after the
application of ejusdem generis the general words can be restricted to the
same class or genus.

In various ways, classes can be defined, however, in order to unlock the true
value of this doctrine, the key is to make sure that the class which is
identified should have some objective relationship with the purpose of the
statute. If we say in a different manner, in the aim of the statute and in its
subject (which are revealed in the intention of the legislation), the basis is
there which determines which among various definitions of classes is
correct.

There should be an Intention of the Legislation

Further, for the application of the rule of Ejusdem Generis, there should be
an intention of the legislation for the same. Meaning that when the specific
 Ejusdem Generis
words were forming a genus or a class, followed by a general word and it can
be seen that the intention of the legislation was there to restrict the general
words to include the thing of same class as that of specific words. Hence, it is
necessary that there was a clear intention of the legislation for interpretation
its provision through doctrine of ejusdem generis.

Cases where doctrine of ejusdem generis

was applied:

Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd v. UOI, 1989

Supreme Court (See Here)
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the rule of ejusdem generis while
interpreting the general words ‘any other process’ under section 2(f) of the
Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 read with Notification Number 230 and 231
dated 15-07-1977. This general word followed the specific words which
were “bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberizing,
shrink-proofing, organic processing”. The Court here by applying the doctrine
of ejusdem generis held that “the specific words form a class of process
which is importing a change which is of lasting nature. And therefore ‘any
other word’ must share one or any other of that process/incident”.

Limitations for the application of doctrine

of ejusdem generis
As it has been previously discussed, for the application of rule of Ejusdem
Generis, some essential conditions are necessary to be fulfilled. Among which
the most important are the existence of a genus/class in the specified words
and that the intention of the legislation was there to read the statute in that
way. The same has been held in two of the landmark cases mentioned
earlier. From that it can be easily deducted that, when this doctrine is not
applicable. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis cannot be applied in the
following conditions:

1. If the general words are there before the specified words then this
doctrine cannot be applied. Therefore it is necessary that specific
words must be followed by the general words. Department of
Customes Vs Sharad Gandhi, 2019 Supreme Court (See here)
 Ejusdem Generis
2. If the specific words in the provision of the statute which are been
followed by the general words do not form a
distinct genus/class then this rule cannot be applied. As this is the
most important factor to restrict the general word to the same
genus of the specified words by using the rule of ejusdem generis.
In the case of Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders
(India) Ltd, 1964 Supreme Court (See here), the Court stated
that whenever the specific words are been followed by general
words, the interpretation of ejusdem generis does not need to be
applied. Before such interpretation, there must be a category or a
genus constituted so that the general words with reference to it can
be restricted, as intended.
3. Also the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be applied if the
general word follows only one word as that one word cannot form a
distinct class/genus.
However there is a exceptional instance to this that the general words if is
following a one word genus which has been created by the court then that
general word can be restricted to that genus of one word.

4. If the specified words exhaust the whole genus/class then this

doctrine is not applicable and in these cases the general word will be
given a wider meaning or a different genus/class as those specified
words has already exhausted the whole genus and nothing would be
left to be included in the general words.
The same has been laid in the “Principles of Statutory Interpretation by
Justice G.P. Singh (page 512)”, that if the words preceding the general
words not only forms a mere specifications of a class/genus but also it forms
the whole description of that genus/class then this rule of ejusdem generis
cannot be applied. The insurance in the ‘policy of insurance’, were been
provided an option for he termination of the policy if they so desired “by
reason of such change or from any other cause whatever”. Here the words
“by reason of such change” can include any and each and every act which is
done to the insured property, whereby the risk of fire increased. Here Lord
Watson stated that, in the case, “In the present case, there appears no
room for its application. The antecedent clause does not contain a mere
specification of particulars but the description of a complete genus…”

5. If there is a contrary intention of the legislation for the application of

the rule of ejusdem generis, then this rule cannot be applied. In
many decided cases, it has been held that the doctrine of ejusdem
generis is “not an inviolable rule of law”. It is “permissible inference
in the absence of an indication to the contrary”. This doctrine is also
one of the cardinal canons of interpretations and therefore, no
interpretation of a statute can be done in a manner so as to cause a
part of it “otiose”. The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagan
Gagansingh Nepali, 2011 Bombay High Court (See here)
 Ejusdem Generis

Cases where the doctrine of ejusdem

generis was not applied
It is not necessary that whenever there are some specific words, followed by
the general words, then the rule has to be applied. The conditions when this
rule cannot be applied are being discussed. Hence when these conditions
exist, the court does not apply this doctrine of Ejusdem ‘generis. This is a
rule of interpretation which may or may not be applied, depending on the
intention of the legislation and the other essential conditions.

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union Of India

Here in this case the question was regarding the interpretation of the general
phrase “any other beverages containing fruit juices or fruit pulp”. This was in
the Fruit Products Order, 1955, which was passed under the section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Through the order the obligation was made
that in fruit syrup, peonage of fruit juice should be 25. The contention made
by the petitioner was that, to its product which is Rooh Afza, the order will
not be applied because the order provided “squashes, crushes, cordials,
barley water, barreled juice and ready-to-serve beverages or any other
beverages containing fruit juices or fruit pulp”. Further by applying the
ejusdem generis, the general phrase will be restricted to the specified words.

This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court and concluded

that ejusdem generis rule will not apply here because the things mentioned
before the general phrase does not constitute a distinct genus. Further it is
clear from the context that there was an intention that all other beverages
which contain fruit juice should also be included.

Improper use of ejusdem generis:

miscarriage of justice
The application of doctrine of ejusdem generis must be done very cautiously.
As by using this rule there is a departure from the natural meaning of the
words so that those meaning can be given to them which the legislation had
intended so as to fulfill its purpose. This rule has to be on the basis of
fundamental rule that “that the statutes must be construed so as to carry
out the object sought to be accomplished”. Thus this rule requires that there
must be a genus constituted by the specific words for which the general
words would be restricted and if the context provides for any contrary
intention so as to give the terms a wider meaning then this rule cannot be
 Ejusdem Generis
applied. Therefore, it should be applied cautiously as to where it must be
applied and where not. If the conditions necessary for the application are
there, then this rule can be applied. However, where the conditions are not
been fulfilled and there exist those circumstances which were discussed
earlier for non application of this rule, even after this if the Court applies this
rule, then it will be a diversion from what the purpose of the legislation was
and hence there will be a miscarriage of justice.

There are many instances where the Courts have improperly used the rule of
Ejusdem Generis, even when it cannot be applied in those cases. Even when
there was no distinct genus of specified words or when genus of specified
words were been exhausted or when only one words was there before
general words, the rule of Ejusdem Generis were been applied by the Courts.

Conclusion
Ejusdem generis, which is one of the canons of the interpretation, is used by
the Judges so as to clear the ambiguity in the provisions of a statute and
further make it clear by knowing the intention of the legislature and thus
properly fulfilling the purpose of the legislation. Here by applying the rule of
ejusdem generis and removing the ambiguity by examining what the
legislation intends, the justice is served by the Courts and thus, the purpose
of the legislation is fulfilled.