If we are are talking about Dharmendra, Jitendra, Amitabh Bacchan, we are talking about the actors of golden era. If there is a discussion about Janhvi Kapoor, Ananya Pandey, Ibrahim Ali Khan, then it is obvious that it is about the upcoming GenZ Bollywood actors. In both the examples, a class was identified with the help of a couple of names, hinting at their qualities. Leaving behind entertainment and coming back to the world of law, let us understand what the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation means. It is one of the secondary rules of interpretation of statutes. We will also seek to explore how certain classes help interpret the meaning of words by the Courts. Let us start with the meaning itself.
Ejusdem Generis Meaning
The term “generis” of Latin means “unique” or “of its own kind” in English. The expression “ejusdem generis” is a Latin phrase that literally means “of the same kind,” “of the same class,” or “of the same nature.” It refers to things that belong to a similar category or share a common characteristic.
Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis
The doctrine of ejusdem generis is a principle of statutory interpretation used by courts to understand the meaning of general words that follow specific words in legislation. When a law lists particular classes of persons or things, and then refers to “other” persons or things, the rule of ejusdem generis presumes that the general words are intended to include only items of the same class or nature as those specifically mentioned.
In essence, it restricts the scope of broadly worded general terms by tying them to the narrower, specific terms that precede them. This prevents an overly wide or unintended interpretation of the specific statutory provision.
Rule of Ejusdem Generis Is Applicable When
The doctrine of ejusdem generis applies only when certain conditions are satisfied. Courts examine the statutory language and context to confirm whether the principle should be invoked. The doctrine is applicable when:
- A list of specific words is followed by general words. The statute must contain a sequence where particular items appear first, and a broader, more general phrase follows.
- The specific words form a distinct, identifiable class or category. The items must not be random or unrelated; they must share a common characteristic. Without a discernible class, the doctrine cannot operate.
- The legislative intent behind including the general words is ambiguous. If the meaning of the general words is clear on its own, the doctrine of ejusdem generis will not be worked up by the Courts. It applies only where the general phrase could be interpreted too broadly.
- There is no indication that the legislature intended the general words to cover everything. If the statute clearly shows an intention to give broad, unrestricted meaning to the general words, the doctrine cannot narrow them.
- Specific and general words are part of the same provision. The general phrase must immediately follow the specific list or be closely connected to it.
Examples of Ejusdem Generis
- “Dogs, cats, cows, and other animals.”: In this case, ‘other animals’ would be interpreted to mean animals of the same domestic or farm type, and not wild animals like tigers or lions.
- “Cars, trucks, tractors, and other vehicles.”: The general term ‘other vehicles’ would be limited to similar land-based motor vehicles, not airplanes or boats.
- “Gold, silver, diamonds, and other valuables.”: Here, ‘Other valuables’ would refer to valuables of similar nature, such as precious metals or gemstones. It will not hint at digital assets or real estate.
- “Schools, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions.”: Here, ‘other educational institutions’ would include similar academic establishments; not commercial training centers unless they fit the class.
- “Houses, buildings, sheds, and other structures.”: The general term ‘other structures’ would include similar types of constructions, not mobile vans or tents.
- “Knives, swords, daggers, and other weapons.”: Other weapons would be weapons of the same class, the sharp-edged weapons, and not firearms.
Ejusdem Generis Case Law
Foreign Case Law
Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co. (1899)
The Betting Act 1853 of the United Kingdom made it an offence to keep a house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting. The House of Lords had to decide if the statute applied to Tattersall’s enclosure at Kempton Park Racecourse. The doctrine of ejusdem generis was applied and it was held that the other items mentioned in the statute were related to indoor places, whereas the place in question was outside. Thus, there was no offence committed.
Evans v. Cross (1938)
The King’s Bench had to interpret the term “other devices” within the context of “traffic signals” under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The specific terms included “all signals, warning signposts, and signs.” The court held that “other devices” did not include a painted line on a road, as it was not of the same nature as the specific terms listed.
Indian Case Law
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise (1972)
The Supreme Court of India in this case clarified that the rule of Ejusdem Generis Is Applicable When specific circumstances exist. The Apex Court expressed that “The ejusdem generis rule, strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category-, (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.”
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain (1979)
The Supreme Court in this case again took the opportunity to interpret when the ejusdem generis doctrine should be applied. The Court explained that “The true scope of the rule of “ejusdem generis” is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be so construed as limited things which are of the same nature as those specified. But the rule is one which has to be “applied with caution and not pushed too far”. It is a rule which must be confined to narrow bounds so as not to unduly or necessarily limit general and comprehensive words. If a broad-based genus could consistently be discovered there is no warrant to cut down general words to dwarf size. If giant it cannot be, dwarf it need not be.”
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras (1960)
In this case, the Supreme Court expressed that the expression signified statutory construction wherein otherwise wide but associated words are given a restricted operation, limited to matters of same class or genus. The Court went on to elaborate that “If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words……If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will be favoured.”
Conclusion
To conclude what has been dwelled upon earlier, it is the class depicted by one or two words, which helps determine the meaning or scope of the accompanying term in question. The bigger challenge while interpreting statutes while applying doctrine of ejusdem generis is whether it would be applicable. That is why ejusdem generis case laws decided by the Supreme Court need to be referred to by subordinate courts before applying the principle.
Also read
