Ejusdem Generis: Meaning
The phrase ejusdem generis, a Latin term which means ‘of the same kind’ is a mere rule of constitution and not a rule of substantive law and is not applicable where the intention of the legislature is otherwise clear.
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, the principle of ejusdem generis is where general words follow an enumeration of persons or thing 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.
The maxim ejusdem generis is also known as Lord Tenterden’s Rule. This rule provides that where specific words are followed by general words, the general words will be interpreted as being limited to persons or things of the same kind or class as enumerated by specific words.
EXAMPLE:
If a law refers to automobiles, truck, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, “vehicles” would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
As per the rule, when particular words pertaining to a class or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified.
The rule applies when
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.
The rule of ejusdem generis must be applied with great caution, because it implies a departure from the natural meaning of words in order to give them a meaning on a supposed intention of the legislature. The rule must be controlled by the fundamental rule that statutes must be construed so as to carry out the object sought to be accompanied. The rule requires that the specific words are all of one genus in which case, the general words may be presumed to be restricted to that genus. The rule should never be invoked where its application appears to defeat the general intent of the instrument to be construed.
The Supreme
Court observed, 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.
Kavallappara Kottarathil Kochuni vs. State of Madra [AIR 1960 SC 1080]
The Court
held “The rule is that when general words follow particular and specific words
of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the
same kind as those specified. But it is clearly laid down by decided cases that
the specific words must form a distinct genus or category. It is not an
inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible inference in the absence of an
indication to the contrary.”
Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar Vs. The Union Of India
[AIR 1970 SC 904]
It was laid down that the rule 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. Ejusdem generis rule being one of the rules of interpretation, only serves, like all such rules, as an aid to discover the legislative intent; it is neither final nor conclusive and is attracted only when the specific words enumerated, constitute a class, which is not exhausted and are followed by general terms and when there is no manifestation of intent to give broader meaning to the general words.
Therefore it is said that since the class of enumeration may often be an artificial creation, the rule of ejusdem generis is at times described as a dangerous yardstick with which to measure the legislative intent, requiring caution in its application.
0 Comments