Ejusdem generis - Indian Laws - General

Meaning of Ejusdem generis rule The term ejusdem generis has been defined in Black s Law Dictionary , 9th Edn. as follows : A canon of construction holding that when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed. The meaning of the expression ejusdem generis was considered by this Court on a number of occasions and has been reiterated in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors. vs Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal Ors. - [ 2010 (2) TMI 1052 - SUPREME COURT ] . The principle is defined thus : The Latin expression ejusdem generis which means of the same kind or nature is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of the restricted words. This is a principle which arises from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context . It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless there is some contrary indication [see Glanville Williams, The Origins and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem Generis Rule, 7 Conv (NS) 119]. NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA - [ 2013 (5) TMI 629 - SUPREME COURT ] The Latin phrase ejusdem generis translates to of the same kind . This legal principle is used to interpret general terms that follow specific ones in a list, ensuring that the general terms are understood to include only items similar to those specifically mentioned. 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. Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise - [ 1972 (5) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT ] M/S. NARAMADA INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES- [ 2023 (2) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]- Para 125. In Skinner Co. vs Shew and Co. (1893) 1 Ch 413 (D), it was observed: The rule of ejusdem generis is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature on the established rule of construction that the Legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense, that is to say, as belonging to the same genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the Courts to give these words their plain and ordinary meaning. In our opinion, in the context of the object and the-mischief of the enactment there is no room for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis. Hence it follows that the vacancy as declared by the order impugned in this case, even though it may not be covered by the specific words used, is certainly covered by the legal import of the words or otherwise .