EJUSDEM GENERIS

 

EJUSDEM GENERIS-SAME KIND

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 words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

 

it is a canon of statutory construction, where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated

The expression Ejusdem Generis means of the same kind. Normally, general words should be given their natural meaning like all other words unless the context requires otherwise. But when a general word follows specific words of a distinct category, the general word may be given a restricted meaning of the same category

 

This principle is limited in its application to general words following less general words only. (If the specific words do not belong to a distinct genus, this rule is inapplicable. Consequently, if a general word follows only one particular word, that single particular word does not constitute a distinct genus, and therefore ejusdem generis rule cannot be applied in such a case).

This rule is one to be applied with caution Le. not to be applied where legislative intention is clear. The rule of ejusdem generis is not to be absolute rule of law, it is only a part of a wider principle of construction. This being so, this rule should not be applied where the intention of the legislature is clear, where a perusal of the provision as a whole clearly indicates that the general words have been employed in their general sense and are not in any way connected with specific things, and the particular words, if used in the section embrace all objects of their class and there is no room to impose any limitation on the general words by reference to the specific things or particular words.

 

If A Man Tells His Wife To Go To Market And Get Fruits And Vegetables And Anything She Likes Then Anything Will Be Considered To Be Fruits Or Vegetables Not Cosmetic Items Or Other Stuff.

EJUSDEM GENERIS – SAME KIND

Application of this rule requires care and caution. As held by the Supreme Court in Kochuni v. State of  Madras "it is not an inviolable rule of law, but it is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary."

 There are six conditions necessary for the application of the principle of Ejusdem Generis:

1. A statute must contain an enumeration by specific words;

2. The enumerated thing must constitute a class by itself;

3. The things that must be included in the class should not be exhausted.

 4. There must be generalisation behind the enumeration;

6. There should be no clear proof that the general term has no broader meaning.

 

Powell v Kempton Park [1899] 2 QB

•      When a statutory provision stated that betting was illegal in a 'house, office, room, or other place .-----INDOOR

•      an outdoor betting ring in a race course could not be considered included because the statutory list referred only to indoor places. The question arose as to whether Tattersall's ring fell within the meaning of 'other place'. Applying the principles of “ejusdem generis”, the court decided that the general words had to mean an indoor place as all the other places on the list were indoor places.

 

 

 

It is said in an old case that unless it is possible to find a category or class, there is no room for the application of this doctrine. According to Sutherland, a 'class' is an artificial creation to provide ease in dealing with numerous items when similar characteristics occur. Thus 'a class' is a generalization which accurately or inaccurately associates items for a particular purpose or treatment. Without some objective or purpose, classification is impossible. Consequently, the rule of Ejusdem generis, depending as it does on pure form, provides a dangerous yardstick with which to measure the statutory coverage which the legislature intended. To envoke the application of the Ejusdem generis rule, there must be distinct genus or category. The specific word must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objectives. Where this is lacking, the rule cannot apply.

In the leading case of State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan the interpretation of S. 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 which said that state government may requisition for the purpose of State or any other public purpose, was involved. It was contended that under this provision the appellant was entitled to requisition premises for housing a member of the foreign consulate. The High court held that the expression 'any other public purpose' should be read ejusdem generis with the purpose of state and providing accommodation to the member of the foreign consulate being a purpose of the union and not of the state, the state government had no authority to requisition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in applying the principle of ejusdem generis. The expression 'any other 'public purpose follows o.nly a single expression for the purpose of a state which is not a distinct genus. In the absence of a genus the rule has no application.

 

Further the intention of the legislature is quite clear by the words used in the enactment. By giving the words their natural meaning, it is apparent that the expression 'any other public purpose' includes providing accommodation to a member of a foreign consulate.

 

Evan vs cross

Sec 48(9) of road traffic act 1930, defined traffic sign to be “ all signals, warning sign post, or other devices”

Other devices will not include painted white line on the road bcz devices are THINGS . which painted line is not

 

 

LATHAM DECEASED

“Trustee, guardian or other person”

Person in similar position to trustee who was not expressly included in the list- i.e beneficially interested

 

HAMDARD DAWAKHANA V UNION OF INDIA

Fruit products order act under section 3 ordered that

Percentage of fruitjuice in fruit syrup should be 25%

Appellant argued that order did not apply to roohafza---FRUITS/ FLAV

Order includes squash, crushes, barley water, barrelled juice and ready to serve beverage or ANY OTHER BEVERAGE CONTAINING FRUIT JUICE  --                           ------25%

Court held that it would be included

 

 

MS SIDDESHWARI COTTON MILLSV UNION OF INDIA

SC observed that expression

“Bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing

Means a process which results in change of lasting character into the fabric

Any other process- must share one of these processes