INTRODUCTION

The words ejusdem generis means of the same kind or nature. The rule of ejusdem generis says that when particular words are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as specified in the particular words(i.e. general words not to be interpreted widely and general words should highlight the object manifested in the particular words). Thus, in order to strike a balance between general and specific words, this maxim is used.

The expression 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".[1] The rule accomplishes the purpose of giving effect to both specific words and general words by treating the specific words as indicating the class and the general words as extending the provision of statute to everything included in that class though not specifically named by the particular word.[2] This rule signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but associated in the text with more limited words, are by implication given a restricted operation.[3]

Ejusdem generis is not a rule of law but a rule of construction, which enables the court to ascertain the intention of the legislature when intention is not clear. It should not be used for the purpose of defeating the intention of the legislature but for the purpose of giving effect to the intention of legislature. However, it is of no use when the intention of the legislature is so clear which requires no resort to this canon of construction.

APPLICATION OF THE RULE

The rule of ejusdem generis applies in the following circumstances:

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.

It is important for the application of this doctrine that generic words should follow specific words in the very same clause or sentence. It is essential for application of the ejusdem generis rule that enumerated things before the general words must constitute a category or a genus or a family which admits of a number of species or members.[4] "It is requisite" said CHANDRASHEKHAR AIYAR, J. "that there must be a distinct genus, which comprise more than one species;"[5] and "it is clearly laid down by decided cases", said SUBBARAO, J. "that the specific words must form a distinct genus or category".[6] If the specified things preceding general words belong to different categories, this principle of construction will not apply.[7] Further, mention of a single species does not constitute a genus.[8]

LIMITATION OF THE RULE

The rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with care and caution. It is not an inviolable rule of law, but it is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary,[9] and where context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning.[10] As stated by Lord SCARMAN: "If the legislative purpose of a statute is such that a statutory series should be read ejusdem generis, so be it, the rule is helpful. But, if it is not, the rule is more likely to defeat than to fulfil the purpose of the statute. The rule like many other rules of statutory interpretation, is a useful servant but a bad master."[11] So a narrow construction on the basis of ejusdem generis rule may have to give way to a broader construction to give effect to the intention of Parliament by adopting a purposive construction.[12]

The rule of ejusdem generis has no universal application. Its application is presumptive and not pre-emptory. The rule should not be invoked in the following circumstances:

1. Where intention of the legislature is clear;
2. Where it would result in disregarding the plain language of the statute;
3. Where a perusal of statute as a whole indicates that legislature intended the general words to go beyond the class specifically designated (i.e. to be interpreted widely);
4. Where specific things enumerated have no common characteristics and differ greatly from one another; and
5. Where specific words follow a general term. Thus, this rule has no inverse application.

_______________________________________________________________________

[1]Tribhuwan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 540, p. 545 : (1969) 3 SCC 99

[2]Collector, Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Protein Products of India Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 627

[3]Asst. Collector, Central Excise, Guntur v. Ram Deo Tobacco Co., AIR 1991 SC 506

[4]State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, AIR 1955 SC 810, p. 812 : 1955 (2) SCR 867

[5]State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, AIR 1955 SC 810, p. 812 : 1955 (2) SCR 867

[6]Kavalapparakottarathilkochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080, p. 1103

[7]National Association of Local Govt. Officers v. Bolton Corporation, (1942) 2 ALL ER 425 (HL)

[8]United Town Electric Co. Ltd. v. A.G. for Newfoundland, (1939) 1 ALL ER 423 (PC)

[9]Kavalapparakottarathilkochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080, p. 1103

[10]LilawatiBai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521, p. 529 : 1957 SCR 721

[11]Quazi v. Quazi, (1979) 3 ALL ER 897, p. 916 : 1980 AC 744

[12]See Re, C (a minor), (1996) 4 ALL ER 871, p. 877 (a to e) (HL)