DOCTRINE OF ‘EJUSDEM GENERIS’

[Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal]

Meaning and Interpretation

According to Oxford Dictionary of English, the term ‘Ejusdum Generis’ means law of or as the same kind.

Denoting a rule for interpreting statues and other writings by assuming that a general term describing a list of specific terms denotes other things that are like the specific elements.

Though there is no definition of ejusdem generis in law, the same has been interpreted and explained in various judicial pronouncements and by various authors.  This is rule which is known as the rule of ejusdem generis reflects an attempt ‘to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous.

The word 'ejusdem generis' 'means of the same kind or nature'. The rule of ejusdem generis is that where particular words are followed in general, the general words should not be construed in their widest sense but should be held as applying to objects, persons or things or the same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated, unless of course, there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose.

Ejusdem generis is not a rule of law but a rule of construction, which enables a court to ascertain the intention of the legislature when the intention is not clear, and does not warrant the court is subverting or defeating the legislative will by confining the operation of a statute within narrower limit than intended by the law-makers. It should be resorted to not for the propose of defeating the intention of the legislature but for the purpose of elucidating its words and giving effect to its intention.

P. Ramanatha Aiyar has extracted various meanings and interpretations of this doctrine, some of which as extracted from Advanced Law Lexicon are as follows:

• Ejusdem generis. Where particular things named (in a document) have same common characteristic which constitutes them a genus and the general words (following an enumeration of specific things or classes of things) can be properly regarded as in the nature of a sweeping clause designed to guard against accidental omissions, then the rule of ejusdem generis will apply, and the general words will be restricted to things of the same nature as those which have been already mentioned; but the absence of a common genus between the enumerated words will not necessarily prevent a restricted construction of the general words if justified by the context. The ejusdem generis construction will be assisted if the general scope or language of the deed, or the particular clause, indicates that the general words should receive a limited construction will produce some unforeseen loss to the grantor. HALSBURY 4th Edn., Vol. 12, para 1526, p.651.

• "The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far, as in the case of many decisions, which treats it as automatically applicable, and not as being, what it is, a mere presumption, in the absence of other indications of the intention of the legislature. To invoke the application of the 'ejusdem generis' rule there must be a distinct genus or category. [Craies on Statute Law (Seventh Edition, para 181, as referred in MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL - 1978 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]

• The general word which follows the particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as those words. (Maxwell, op. cit p. 297).

• A rule of construction : general words (as in a statute) that follow specific words in a list must be construed as referring only to the types of things identified by the specific words.  (Merriam Webster)

• Of the same kind or nature. Where a list of specific items is followed by general concluding clause, this is deemed to be limited to things of the same kind as those specified.

• Of the same nature. A rule of construction whereby general terms following particular ones are taken to apply to persons and things which are of the same nature as those comprehended in the particular terms.

• (Lat.) "Of the same kind or species." A well known maxim of construction. The phrase "ejusdem generis" means "of the same kind" and is more restricted than the word 'analogous.' 5 Rang. 675 : 107 IC 161 : AIR 1928 Rang. 31. For an application of the rule in the construction of Statutes. [See (1882) AWN 102: AIR 1928 Ran. 31: 10 Born LR 1019: 107 IC 161].

By the application of the maxim ejusdem generis, which is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscuntur a sociis, general and specific words which are capable of an analogous, meaning being, associated together, take color from each other, so that the general words are restricted to a sense, analogous, to the less general." (Mirch v. Russell, 12 LRA 125 : 107 IC 161 : AIR 1928 R. 31)

The words 'ejusdem generies' means of the same kind or nature. The rule of 'ejusdem generies' is that where particular words are followed by general, the general words should not be construed in their widest sense but should be held as applying to objects, persons or things of the same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated, unless of course, there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose. Or to put it in a slightly different language, where general and special words which are capable of analogous meaning are associated together, they take colour from each other and the general words are restrained and limited to a sense analogous to the less general. The ejusdem generis  doctrine has been described in the words of Lopes L.J., in Smelting Co., of Australia v. Commission of Inland Revenue, as meaning "that where general words immediately follow or are closely associated with specific words, their meaning must be limited by reference to the preceding words". Cited in M. KUMAR VERSUS BHARATH EARTH MOVERS LIMITED - 1999 (1) TMI 548 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT.

The rule of 'ejusdem generis' should never be invoked where  its application appears to defeat the general intent of the instrument to be construed. G.D. KARKARE VERSUS T.L. SHEVDE AND OTHERS - 1950 (11) TMI 25 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT.

Ejusdem generis rule. The 'edjusdem generis rule' is often useful or convenient, but it is merely a rule of construction, not a rule of law. [N.A.L.G.O. v. Bolton Corpn., (1943) AC 166. See also MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL - 1978 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]

This rule applies in the following situations:

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.

This rule is applied when the statutory provision concerned contains an enumeration of specific words, the subject of the enumeration thereby constituting a class or category but which class or category is not exhausted at the same time by the enumeration and the general term follows the enumeration with no specific indication of any different legislative intention. This rule which normally envisages words of general nature following specific and particular words to be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified, also requires to be applied with great caution and not pushed too far so as to unduly or unnecessarily limit general and comprehensive words to dwarf size.

The ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when:

1. the statute contains an enumeration of specific words;
2. the subjects or enumeration constitute a class or category;
3. that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;
4. the general term follows the enumeration;
5. there is no indication of a different legislative intent. AMAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA & ORS. - 1972 (5) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT;   ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF C. EX. VERSUS RAMDEV TOBACCO COMPANY - 1991 (1) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT