Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
PROJECT

The doctrine of Ejusdem generis

Submitted to- Submitted by-

MS. SAKSHI GUPTA Vanshika Singh

Semester: 8-E

Course: B.A.LLB(H)

Enrollment No.: 23317703818

 DECLARATION

I, Vanshika Singh of 8th Semester, Section E pursuing BA-LLB(H)

declare that this research paper titled " The doctrine of Ejusdem
generis” submitted to the department of Vivekananda School of Law
and Legal Studies, VIPS, Delhi for the project submission of Tax Law
is my original work under the guidance of Ms. Sakshi Gupta.
The information and data given in this paper is authentic and the relevant
references have also been mentioned to the best of my knowledge. The
result embodies in this project have not been submitted to any University
or institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

-Vanshika Singh

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken sincere efforts towards the completion of this project.

However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and
help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my
sincere thanks and gratitude to all of them.
First and foremost, I'd like to thank Ms. Rashmi Salpekar, Dean,
VSLLS for providing me with this golden opportunity to work on a
project through which I am able to enhance my research skills later
required in the field of law and for always supporting the students in
the best possible manner.
I would like to express my special gratitude to Ms. Sakshi Gupta,
Assistant Professor, VSLLS for his guidance and constant supervision
as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project
whenever required.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for believing
in me and displaying kind cooperation and encouragement which
helped me in completion of this project.

3
CONTENTS

❖ INTRODUCTION
➢ RESEARCH PROBLEM
➢ OBJECTIVE
➢ HYPOTHESIS
➢ RESEARCH QUESTIONS

❖ DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS: MEANING AND

DEFINITION

❖ NEED FOR THE DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS

❖ CLASS OR GENUS OF THE SPECIFIC WORDS

❖ LANDMARK CASES

❖ LIMITATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE

DOCTRINE
❖ IMPROPER USE OF THE DOCTRINE: MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE

❖ CONCLUSION

4
 INTRODUCTION

For knowing the meaning of the statute, the statutory interpretation is done by the
Courts. There are many rules for the interpretation of the statutes. One of them is
“the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis”. This doctrine is applied when there are some
specified words which are been followed by the general words. If there is any
ambiguity in the meaning of the general words then this doctrine is applied. This
doctrine provides that the general words which follow the specified words will be
restricts to the same class of the specified words. This is very important doctrine
through which the purpose or the objectives of the statute can be achieved and a
proper justice can be given.
In this Article, the following topics will be covered: what is interpretation of statutes
and the rules of interpretations, then the meaning of ejusdem generis doctrine will
be discussed and its necessity and when it is applied, next thing which is discussed
is the essentials of the doctrine which will cover what conditions are necessary for
its application, next the limitation of this doctrine is been provided so as to when is
doctrine is not applicable. At last the improper use of this doctrine by the courts is
been discussed that how courts does not use this doctrine properly sometime and
thus justice is not provided.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is a canon of interpretation, which is used by the

Courts for providing the Justice, by interpreting according to the intention of the
legislation so as to make the provision of legislation clear and unambiguous and thus
fulfilling the purpose of the legislation. But the matter of concern is that whether the
Courts are using the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis in a proper manner, to properly
interpret the legislations and fulfill its purpose or the Courts are using this doctrine

5
improperly where it is not required thus defeating the purpose and causing the
miscarriage to the Justice?

OBJECTIVE

❖ To understand the meaning of the statutory interpretation.

❖ To understand the meaning of “Ejusdem Generis”.
❖ To study the applicability and the non-applicability of the doctrine of Ejusdem
Generis.
❖ To study the cases where this doctrine were applied and where not.
❖ To examine whether the Courts are using this doctrine in a proper manner or
not.

HYPOTHESIS

❖ For the application of this doctrine the general words must follow the specific
words and the specific words must necessarily constitute a genus/class
❖ There must be an intention of the statute for restricting the general word to the
genus/class of the specified words it follows.
❖ As this doctrine has to be used very cautiously by the Courts but sometimes
the Courts may not use this doctrine properly and apply it where it is not
necessary thus defeating the purpose of the statute and causing a miscarriage
to Justice.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is Ejusdem Generis?

2. When this doctrine can be applied and when it cannot?
3. Does the Court apply this doctrine of ejusdem generis properly or not?

6
 DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS: MEANING
AND DEFINITION
‘Ejusdem Generis’ is a Latin term and the meaning of it is “of the same kind and
nature”.
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 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.”
This doctrine is also called Lord Tenterden’s Rule (See here), which is an ancient
doctrine. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis provides that when a list of specific
words are being followed by the general words, the general words are interpreted in
a way so as to restrict them to include the items or things which will be of same type
as those of the specific words. In other words, “where a law lists specific classes of
persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only
apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.” (See here) For
example if a law makes reference to cars, trucks, tractors, bikes and other motor-
powered vehicles, then the general word which is ‘other motor powered vehicles’
will not include any planes or ships because the specific words preceding are of the
kind of land transports and when doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied then that
general word will be restricted to includes the things of same category as that of the
specific words.
In case of Evans v. Cross [(1938) 1 KB 694], the Court had applied the ejusdem
generis rule. The issue was in relation to the interpretation of the word “other
devices”. It was under the definition of “traffic signals” under Section 48(9) Road
Traffic Act, 1930, to include “all signals, warning sign posts, signs, or other
devices”. The Court held that a painted line on a road cannot be included in the
“other devices” as a traffic signs because devices are here indicating a thing, whereas
painted line on a road is not.

7
 NEED FOR THE DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM
GENERIS
The need for interpretation of statute by the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis arises
when-
There is ambiguity in the language of the provisions of statutes, or
When in the provision, there is a possibility of two views, or
The meaning which the provision of a statute gives, defeats the purpose of the
statute.
There is no need for the interpretation if in the language there is no ambiguity and it
is clear. (See here)
WHEN APPLIED: Unless the context requires, the natural meaning should be given
to the general words normally. In the case of Lilawati Bai v. Bombay State, 1957
Supreme Court (See here), the Court observed that “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.”
But when on reading, it is found that there is some ambiguity in the provisions of
the statute and the intent of the statute is to restrict the general words to the category
of the specifics words, then this doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied. Therefore,
when general words follows the specified words and those specified words have a
genus/category then the general words will be restricted to the same genus/category.
This is done because the legislation had shown it intention by using such words of
class/category and is the Court will go in contrary to that intention and gives wider
meaning to the general words then the purpose of the legislation will be defeated.

8
 CLASS OR GENUS OF THE SPECIFIC WORDS
In order to invoke the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis for its application, a distinct
‘category’ or ‘genus’ must be present. “The specific words must apply not to
different objects of the widely different character but to something which can be
called a class or kind of object” (See here). This implies that the enumeration of
specific words preceding the general should necessarily constitute a distinct genus:
it must be of some class. Then only after the application of ejusdem generis the
general words can be restricted to the same class or genus.
In various ways, classes can be defined, however, in order to unlock the true value
of this doctrine, the key is to make sure that the class which is identified should have
some objective relationship with the purpose of the statute. If we say in a different
manner, in the aim of the statute and in its subject (which are revealed in the intention
of the legislation), the basis is there which determines which among various
definitions of classes is correct.
There should be an Intention of the Legislation
Further, for the application of the rule of Ejusdem Generis, there should be an
intention of the legislation for the same. Meaning that when the specific words were
forming a genus or a class, followed by a general word and it can be seen that the
intention of the legislation was there to restrict the general words to include the thing
of same class as that of specific words. Hence, it is necessary that there was a clear
intention of the legislation for interpretation its provision through doctrine of
ejusdem generis.

9
 LANDMARK CASES
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd v. UOI, 1989 Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the rule of ejusdem generis while
interpreting the general words ‘any other process’ under section 2(f) of the Central
Excise & Salt Act, 1944 read with Notification Number 230 and 231 dated 15-07-
1977. This general word followed the specific words which were “bleaching,
mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberizing, shrink-proofing, organic
processing”. The Court here by applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis held that
“the specific words form a class of process which is importing a change which is of
lasting nature. And therefore ‘any other word’ must share one or any other of that
process/incident”.
Kerala Cooperative Consumers’ Federation Ltd v. CIT, (1988) 170 ITR 455 (Ker).
The Court in this case, interpreted the meaning of the phrase “‘Body of Individuals”,
which was provided in the section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. The phrase was
alongside “‘Association of Persons”. The Court by applying the doctrine of ejusdem
generis held that “Body of Individuals” will have to be understood with the same
context, meaning and background which are provided to the words “Association of
Persons”. In this decision, the court was required to interpret the meaning of the
phrase ‘Body of Individuals’. It has said that in construing the words ‘Body of
Individuals’ occurring in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act along-side the words
‘Association of Persons’, the words ‘Body of Individuals’ would have to be
understood in the same background, context and meaning given to the words
“Association of Persons’.

10
 LIMITATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF
DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS
As it has been previously discussed, for the application of rule of Ejusdem Generis,
some essential conditions are necessary to be fulfilled. Among which the most
important are the existence of a genus/class in the specified words and that the
intention of the legislation was there to read the statute in that way. The same has
been held in two of the landmark cases mentioned earlier. From that it can be easily
deducted that, when this doctrine is not applicable. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis
cannot be applied in the following conditions:
If the general words are there before the specified words then this doctrine cannot
be applied. Therefore it is necessary that specific words must be followed by the
general words. Department of Customes Vs Sharad Gandhi, 2019 Supreme Court
(See here)
If the specific words in the provision of the statute which are been followed by the
general words do not form a distinct genus/class then this rule cannot be applied. As
this is the most important factor to restrict the general word to the same genus of the
specified words by using the rule of ejusdem generis. In the case of Jagdish Chandra
Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd, 1964 Supreme Court (See here), the Court
stated that whenever the specific words are been followed by general words, the
interpretation of ejusdem generis does not need to be applied. Before such
interpretation, there must be a category or a genus constituted so that the general
words with reference to it can be restricted, as intended.
Also the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be applied if the general word follows
only one word as that one word cannot form a distinct class/genus.
However there is a exceptional instance to this that the general words if is following
a one word genus which has been created by the court then that general word can be
restricted to that genus of one word.

11
If the specified words exhaust the whole genus/class then this doctrine is not
applicable and in these cases the general word will be given a wider meaning or a
different genus/class as those specified words has already exhausted the whole genus
and nothing would be left to be included in the general words.
The same has been laid in the “Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh (page 512)”, that if the words preceding the general words not only forms a
mere specifications of a class/genus but also it forms the whole description of that
genus/class then this rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied. The insurance in the
‘policy of insurance’, were been provided an option for he termination of the policy
if they so desired “by reason of such change or from any other cause whatever”.
Here the words “by reason of such change” can include any and each and every act
which is done to the insured property, whereby the risk of fire increased. Here Lord
Watson stated that, in the case, “In the present case, there appears no room for its
application. The antecedent clause does not contain a mere specification of
particulars but the description of a complete genus…”
If there is a contrary intention of the legislation for the application of the rule of
ejusdem generis, then this rule cannot be applied. In many decided cases, it has been
held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis is “not an inviolable rule of law”. It is
“permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary”. This doctrine
is also one of the cardinal canons of interpretations and therefore, no interpretation
of a statute can be done in a manner so as to cause a part of it “otiose”.

12
 IMPROPER USE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS:
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The application of doctrine of ejusdem generis must be done very cautiously. As by
using this rule there is a departure from the natural meaning of the words so that
those meaning can be given to them which the legislation had intended so as to fulfill
its purpose. This rule has to be on the basis of fundamental rule that “that the statutes
must be construed so as to carry out the object sought to be accomplished”. Thus
this rule requires that there must be a genus constituted by the specific words for
which the general words would be restricted and if the context provides for any
contrary intention so as to give the terms a wider meaning then this rule cannot be
applied. Therefore, it should be applied cautiously as to where it must be applied and
where not. If the conditions necessary for the application are there, then this rule can
be applied. However, where the conditions are not been fulfilled and there exist those
circumstances which were discussed earlier for non application of this rule, even
after this if the Court applies this rule, then it will be a diversion from what the
purpose of the legislation was and hence there will be a miscarriage of justice.
There are many instances where the Courts have improperly used the rule of
Ejusdem Generis, even when it cannot be applied in those cases. Even when there
was no distinct genus of specified words or when genus of specified words were
been exhausted or when only one words was there before general words, the rule of
Ejusdem Generis were been applied by the Courts. The Courts also applied this rule
in some cases where there was no legislative intent to restrict the wider meaning of
the general term.
The Courts by improperly using the rule of Ejusdem Generis, changes the whole
meaning of the provision and thus defeat the purpose of the Act, as to the intent of
the legislation. This results in miscarriage of Justice.
CASES:
State Of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, 1955 Supreme Court

13
The Supreme Court in this case held that the decision of the High Court was in error
and therefore it rejected the decision of the High Court and concluded that High
Court had not use the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis properly and the doctrine should
not have been applied in this case.
The issue was regarding the interpretation of the general word “any other purpose”
in the section 6 (4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The general words
along with the specified words were “‘State Government may requisition for the
purpose of State or any other public purpose”. Here the appellant contented that
“under the provision the appellant was entitled to requisition premises for housing a
member of the foreign consulate”. The High Court by applying the rule of ejusdem
generis restricted the word “any other purpose” with the “purpose of state”. The
Supreme Court here held that this finding of High Court is wrong in applying the
rule of ejusdem generis and it further held that here “any other purpose” which is the
general expression follow only one expression, which is “for the purpose of State”.
Thus it does not form a distinct genus/class and therefore, the rule of ejusdem generis
cannot be applied. Futrther, the Court observed that by the words used in the statute,
the intention of the legislation was also clear to give the words their natural meaning,
which means that the expression “ any other purpose” will also include “providing
accommodation to a member of foreign consulate”

14
 CONCLUSION
Ejusdem generis, which is one of the canons of the interpretation, is used by the
Judges so as to clear the ambiguity in the provisions of a statute and further make it
clear by knowing the intention of the legislature and thus properly fulfilling the
purpose of the legislation. Here by applying the rule of ejusdem generis and
removing the ambiguity by examining what the legislation intends, the justice is
served by the Courts and thus, the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.
However as had been already discussed earlier in the project this doctrine has to be
applied very cautiously. Therefore the existence of the essential elements is
necessary for the doctrine to be applied. It is necessary that the general words follow
the specified words and the specified words to necessarily constitute a distinct
genus/class. Further this doctrine is not an inviolable rule of law. Hence it cannot be
applied when the intention of the legislation is contrary, means if the legislation
intention is to give the general terms its wider meaning. Further the exceptions which
are been discussed should also be kept in mind while applying this principle.
Because if there is no genus of the specified words or the intention of the legislation
was not to restrict the general term then this can lead to change in the whole meaning
of the provision and will defeat the whole purpose of the Act.
However, it can be concluded from the cases discussed in the project that the Courts
do apply this doctrine improperly even when in the provisions the applicability of
this principle was not possible. The Courts apply this principle even when the
specified words do not constitute a genus/class, or when the intention of the
legislation was to give the general words its wider meaning. This step of the Courts
can cause a great harm. It can change the whole meaning of the provision, thus
applying it in the wrong manner and defeating the whole purpose of the legislation.
Hence, it will cause a great miscarriage to the Justice. These mistakes can lead to
the opposite of what the main objective of the doctrine of ejusdem generis was.
Therefore, it is very necessary that this doctrine should be applied very cautiously
by the Courts by properly analyzing as to where this doctrine is to be applied and
where not depending upon its essential element and exceptions.

15
16
17
18