SECONDARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. Noscitur a Sociis
Meaning:
The doctrine of noscitur a sociis has much relevance in understanding the import of words in a
statutory provision. In ascertaining the meaning of the word or a clause or sentence in the statute for its
interpretation, everything which is legally relevant should be admissible. The doctrine of noscitur a
sociis is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to
words found in immediate connection with them. The philosophy behind it is that the meaning of the
doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it.

Jurist's views:
According to Maxwell, “This rule means that when two or more words which are susceptible of
analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They
take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous
to a less general.

Application of rule:
Noscitur a sociis is only a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the
wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word
correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the Legislature in associating wider words with
words of narrower significance is doubtful or otherwise not clear and that the present rule of
construction can be usefully applied.

Case Laws:
1. Commissioners vs Savoy Hotel, while interpreting a Purchase Tax Act, which used the expression
'manufactured beverages including fruit-juices and bottled waters and syrups, etc', it was held that the
description 'fruit-juices' as occurring therein should be construed in the context of the preceding words
and that orange juice unsweetened and freshly pressed was not within the description.
2. State of Karnataka vs Union of India, Article 194(3) of the Constitution which refers to Powers,
Privileges and Immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State was construed. The SC held that the
word 'powers' must take its colour from words in immediate connection with it and that it should be
construed to refer not to legislative powers, but to powers of a House which are necessary for the
conduct of its business.
3. In case of Lokmat Newspapers (P) Ltd vs Shankarprasad, it has been held that for the applicability of
this rule two words in the statute should have analogous meaning. Since in this case, the words
'discharge' and 'dismissal' used in a statutory provision did not have the same analogous meaning, this
rule did not apply.
4. State of Assam vs Ranga Mohammad- The SC in construing the word 'posting' as it occurs in Article
233(1) of the Constitution in association with words 'appointment' and 'promotion' held that the word
'posting' took its colour from the associated words and meant the assignment of an appointee to a
position in the cadre and not his transfer from one station to another.

Conclusion:
This rule has been interpreted as that the 'associated' words take their meaning from one another under
the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of the doubtful word may
be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it, such doctrine is broader than
the maxim ejusdem generis.
Advantages:
1. There is no need for draftsmen to foresee every particular circumstance.
2. There is scope for the act to be adapted in unforeseen circumstances.
Disadvantages:
1. It offends the separation of powers.
2. The outcome of cases is unpredictable because of the scope for judicial discretion.
2. Ejusdem Generis
Meaning:
Ejusdem Generis is a Latin term which means 'of the same kind'. According to the rule of ejusdem
generis, when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words,
they are construed as limited to the things of the same kind as those specified.

Definition:
According to Black's Law Dictionary, 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
same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

Application of rule:
This rule applies under the following circumstances:
• when the statute contains an enumeration of specific words
• the subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category
• that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration
• the general terms follow the enumeration
• there is no indication of a different legislative intent.
This rule reflects an attempt 'to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words in
view of 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 rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with care and caution. This is not an inviolable rule of
law, but it is only a permissible inference, in the absence of any indication to the contrary.

Case Laws:
1. Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills Ltd vs MP Electricity Board, S.49(3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948,
which empowers the Electricity Board 'to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person-
having regard to the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and purpose for which the
supply is required and any other relevant factors' was construed. Here the SC declined to apply the rule
of ejusdem generis for limiting the ambit of other relevant factors' on the ground that there was no
genus to the relevant factors. It was held that the enumerated factors namely geographical position of
the area and the nature and purpose of the supply could not be related to any common genus to enable
the application of the ejusdem generis rule.
2. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs Union of India- In construing words 'any other process' in S.2(f)(v)
of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 this rule was applied. This section defined 'manufacture' in
relation to goods to include bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water proofing, rubberising,
shrink proofing or any other process. It was held by the SC that the processes enumerated contemplate
processes which import change of a lasting character to the fabric by either the addition of some
chemical into the fabric or otherwise. Then 'any other process' in the section must share one or other of
these incidents which constitute manufacture in the extended sense.
3. Ishwar Singh Bagga vs State of Rajasthan- S.129 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowered 'any police
officer authorized in this behalf or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government to
detain and seize vehicles used without certification of registration or permits. The words 'other person'
in this section cannot be construed by the rule of ejusdem generis for mention of single species, namely
police officer does not constitute a genus, but having regard to the importance of the power to detain
and seize vehicles, it is proper to infer that the words 'other person' were restricted to the category of
government offices.
Advantages:
1. There is no requirement for the draftsmen to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included.
2. The act can cover circumstances which might not have been covered by the draftsmen.
3. It allows the act to adapt to changes in society.
Disadvantages:
1. It is not always predictable what the judges will consider to be the same category as the specific
words.
2. It allows for judiciary for law-making which is not desirable.
Conclusion:
The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a canon of construction like many other rules which gives way to
the clear intention of the legislature. This rule is a facet of Noscitur a sociis. It applies only when there
is no contrary intention. Its application does not defeat purpose of legislation and also does not render
any part of statute redundant.
3. Reddendo Singula Singulis