NTRODUCTION

A statute is generally interpreted as per the intent of legislature but once legislature passes the statute, its
interpretation lies in the hand of the judges/courts. There might be some cases where the statute might not be clear
and judges might need to interpret the statute as per their need. So, in order to make sure that there is no
arbitrariness in the interpretation, many canons of statutory interpretation has been brought forward so as to guide
the judges towards the right interpretation.
These canons of interpretation are based on rule of thumb. Courts have the discretion to choose which
interpretation to use and which to discard. So basically, the function of these canons of statutory interpretation is to
guide the courts to correct construction of statutes when more than one interpretation is possible and in doing so
recreate the passage of statute and thereby give effect to the real legislative intent.
Ejusdem generis is one of those canons of statutory interpretation which is used when a statute contains certain
specific words which is followed by a general term. The researcher will be looking into this canon of statutory
interpretation in this research paper. By doing so the researcher would like to find out various elements or conditions
that needs to be fulfilled before the use of this principle. The researcher would also try to look at some of the
problems of this principle and has a hypothesis that the interpretation using this principle is not used uniformly and
there are many limitations to it.
In order to do that, the researcher has first looked into the meaning of this term and then looked into various elements
in the second part of the paper. In the third part of the paper, the researcher has looked into some problems with this
canon of interpretation.
In order to write this paper, the researcher has used uniform mode of citation and has relied upon both primary
sources like case laws and secondary sources like books and articles.

EJUSDEM GENERIS: DEFINITION

A literal translation of the term ejusdem generis means of the same type or kind.[1] As per Blacks Law
Dictionary, ejusdem generis means, 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.[2]
Using the definition above, we can say that ejusdem generis is a principle used to interpret the meaning of statute
when wide words are used after specific words in statute. As per this principle of interpretation, when wide words are
associated with words of specific type, then the wide word should be interpreted as per the specific words that were
mentioned before the wide word. In other words, the meaning of the wide word should be limited by the meaning of
specific words that precedes the word.[3]

There are some advantages of this rule. They are:

No requirement for the draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything included.
Leaves room for interpretation of the Act to adapt and evolve with time, for example keep up with technological
advances.[4]
Salmond, while explaining the definition of this principle has provided us with an example as well. As per Salmond,
another example of a rule of language in a legal maxim is the Ejusdem Generis rule which serves to restrict the
meaning of general words to things or matters of the same kind (genus) as the preceding particular words. So, for
example, when the Sunday Observance Act, 1677, provided that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other

person whatsoever should do certain things, the general phrase other person whatsoever was held to refer only
persons within the class indicated by previous particular words and not, therefore, to include such persons as
farmers or barbers.[5]Therefore, we can say that using ejusdem generis principle means providing a general word a
restricted meaning as per the words preceding the general words, which are of specific category or genus.
It has been said and agreed by many scholars that when legislature introduces statute, it is very difficult to make it
exhaustive. Therefore, in order to make sure that maximum term is incorporated into the statute, general words like
and other devices are added by the legislature after some specific words. The question now is, why should the
meaning be restricted? The reasoning advanced in support of restricting the meaning of the general term is
that,were it intended to include everything under the general term, irrespective of its similarity to the specially named
matters then these would not have been thus set forth.[6]

CONDITIONS
This rule of ejusdem generis is not a new rule of construction. It is an ancient doctrine, which was called Lord
Tenterden's Rule. It was used in Archbishop of Canterbury's Case in 1596, where the Judge laid down this rule of
construction. Now, weve to realize that every case where the dispute relates to specific genus of words followed by
general word does not attract this rule of interpretation. There are certain elements that need to be fulfilled before the
judges/courts can use this method of interpretation. There are various conditions ranging for requirement of specific
words to legislative intent and these conditions have been properly mentioned in the case of Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity Board v. Harishanker[7]. Here, the Supreme Court has laid down five different conditions that needs to be
fulfilled this rule of construction is used. They are:
1.
2.

The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.

The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category.

3.
4.

That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration.

The general terms follow the enumeration.

5.

There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

Now, firstly, let us look at the condition number 1 and 2 together. As per these conditions, the statute, in order to
use ejusdem generis, must have specific words and this enumeration should make up a certain category or class. If
the specific words do not form a class or category, then, this principle cannot be used. The reason behind this is quite
evident. The whole rule of ejusdem generis depends on enumeration of specific words and without these words there
is no interpretation. Also, these enumeration needs to form certain class or category because if such category is not
formed judges cannot interpret the general word in a limited sense as multiple or no category will exist.
Let us look at some example. In the case of Tillmans & Co. v. S.S. Knutsford Ltd.[8], Judge Farwell trying to interpret
the word in consequence of war, disturbance or any other cause said that, any other cause here should be
interpreted in line with the first two words as they form a class/category. Additionally, he also said that if the words
here was in consequence of war, disturbance or any other cause whatsoever, whether similar to those preceding or
not, then in this case this rule of construction cannot be used as there is no class or genus that is formed, it is only
universality. So he said that, unless you can find a category there is no room for the application of the ejusdem
generisdoctrine.
Similarly, in the Indian case of Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay[9], the court was trying to interpret otherwise in
ceases to be in occupation upon termination of his tenancy, eviction or assignment or transfer in any other manner of
his interest in the premises or otherwise. The court here rejected to use the rule of ejusdem generis saying that the
specific words that is before the general word does not form any category or class. Similarly, in the case
of N.A.L.G.O v. Bolton Corporation[10] the court while trying to interpret otherwise, the court said that clerical work
and manual work does not make up a class or genus.

So, now we know that there should be specific words and just having specific words is not enough, the specific words
should form a certain type of class or category.
Secondly condition to be fulfilled is non-exhaustion of the class or genus through enumeration of specific words. This
is also a vital condition because if the specific words exhaust the class or category then the general word cannot
have its meaning under this class or category and this rule of construction cannot be applied properly. It has been
mentioned in the case of Board of Prison Commissioners v. Binford[11] that where the particular words exhaust the
class, there can be nothing ejusdem generis left and the general words following must be given a meaning outside of.
The class indicated by the particular words. Otherwise the general words would be mere surplus and devoid of
meaning. So, through this judgment we can see that if certain genus or class is exhaustive then the meaning of the
general word will be beyond that class/genus or will have no meaning at all. The rationale behind this also lies in
legislative intent. It is said that if legislature has exhausted meanings available under a class and still have used the
general term, then legislative intent should be to provide unrestricted meaning to the general term. [12] This
argument however, does not satisfy the researcher fully as, this general term might have been used by the legislature
to make sure that they do not leave out anything that is important from the class/category or may have kept it in order
to cope up with technological advances, which might not have been introduced right now but can be introduced in
near future rather than giving it an unrestricted meaning.
In addition to these conditions, the third condition in order to use the rule of ejusdem generis is that the general term
should follow the specific words/enumeration. The courts have always been reluctant to use this rule of construction if
the general word precedes the specific words.[13]As per Maxwell, the principle of ejusdem generis applies only to
general words following the words which are less general.[14]
An example of a case: Higler v. People[15] can be taken. Here, the court said that in the term, "any false token or
writing, or by any other false pretense." The accused claimed that the "other" false pretense must be of a kindred
nature to those mentioned, but it was held that owing to the general nature of the terms used, it was evident that the
statute did not attempt an enumeration of the pretenses that should be held criminal.
The final and one of the most important conditions for the use of ejusdem generis is that it should not be contrary to
the legislative intent. It is so because, as it has been mentioned above time and again, ejusdem generis is a rule of
construction and not rule itself, therefore, one cannot violate the legislative intent and should have to construe the
statute as per legislative intent. As it has been mentioned in the case of Kochunni v. State of Madras[16], Ejusdem
generisis a rule that can only be used if any indication showing it is contrary to the legislative intent is absent.
Additionally, in the case of Quazi vs. Quazi[17]Lord Scarman said that, 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 fulfill the purpose of the statute. The rule, like many other rules of statutory interpretation, is a
useful servant but a bad master.
Now, there are two ways that one can find out if use of ejsudem generis is contrary to the legislative intent or not. The
first way would be if this principle is expressly excluded by the legislation. The legislature by the use of express
words can make their intention clear that the principle of ejusdem generis is not to be applied while explaining the
meaning of general word. In the case of Larsen vs. Sylvester[18] the words of what kind so ever was used in the
statute and the court held that use of this term was sufficient to rule of the use of ejusdem generis. However, in the
case of Clark vs. Gaskarth[19]the use of term whatsoever was not sufficient to rule out the use of ejusdem
generis. This shows us that very strong word is required to expressly exclude ejusdem generis therefore not much
instance of express exclusion can be seen.
Another way to find out if use of ejsudem generis is contrary to the legislative intent or not is through implied
exclusion. Implied exclusion basically means against the legislative intent but not expressly mentioned in the statute
itself. We can see in the case of Alexander vs. Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. Ltd.[20], case was taken to the court for
obstruction caused by a moving vehicle in coal mine. The House of lords here said that the principle of ejusdem
generis would not apply in this case as not only there is a single genus describing term but also the enactment in
question here was not brought forward to cover an obstruction of a moving vehicle.

Another example regarding implied exclusion would be the case of Massey and another vs. Boulden and
Another[21] where the court held that the words common land, moorland used were not used to narrow the
meaning of or land of any other description but rather were enumerated so that even these two terms would be
included as these were the least likely ones to be included.

IRREGULARITIES AND LIMITATIONS

OF EJUSDEM GENERIS
As we can see above, there are many conditions that need to be satisfied before one can use the principle
of ejusdem generis. The researcher would like to point out that there are other conditions as well but those conditions
are somewhat contentious. Francis Bennion in his book Bennion on statutory interpretation mentions that rule that
two or more genus describing words are always required would be too rigid.[22] Whereas, many scholars and one of
the leading cases regarding ejsudem generis say that, There must be at least two specific words in a list before the
general word or phrase for this rule to operate.[23]The researcher here agrees with the second interpretation
because in order to form a category or group of words, at least two words are required. Only one word cannot form a
genus as the word can be construed in form the person ones and there will be nothing it could be related to.
In addition to this, there is one other problem in application of ejusdem generis. There are some instances where we
see that the principle of ejusdem generis has been wrongly applied. In many cases, wrong use of this principle brings
out wrong decisions whereas in some case even wrong application of this principle provides with right decision. We
can take example of some cases below.
We can take the case of Ishwar Singh Bagga vs. State of Rajasthan[24]. Here, the Court looked into expression
police officer and other person. The Court came to the decision using ejusdem generis that other person can be
restricted to Government Official. In researchers view, the final decision is correct but the means used, which
isejusdem generis, is not correct. As it has been mentioned above, there should be atleast two different words or
things to form a category/genus. Since, only police officer is used in this case, the use of ejusdem generis in this
case is not correct.
Similarly, in another case of Food Corporation of India vs. Yadav Engineer and Contractor[25] the statement before
filing a written statement or taking any other step in proceedings was looked upon by the Court. The Court
using ejusdem generis came to a conclusion that any other steps here means a step clearly and unambiguously
manifesting an intention to waive the benefit of arbitration agreement. Though the decision here in this case was also
right, as there is only one species/word, the word written statement cannot form a genus/category.
In another case of Flack vs. Baldry[26] the question that was being looked at is if stun gun would fall under firearm
or not under the Firearms act. The Act prohibited devices that discharge any noxious liquid, gas or other thing and
was clearly framed to restrict weapons that has no justifiable use outside military forces. Here, the Court
used ejusdem generis and said that other thing does include electric shock and said stun gun is a firearm. The
decision in this case might be correct as per public policy but as the legislation was brought forward to restrict military
weapons and stun gun is not a military weapon, firstly, it is contrary to legislative intent and secondly, the researcher
does not believe that electric shock would be ejusdem generis with noxious liquid and gases, therefore, the decision
given here was wrong.
Now, in another case of Hall Street Associates v. Mattel[27], the Court used the principle of ejusdem generis as
implicit lesson. Here, the court said that, Section 10 and 11 of Federal Arbitration Act (USA), though does not
contain any specific words followed by general word, they using implicit lesson prohibited the process going on. The
researcher here believes that this decision is not correct as one of the condition that needs to be satisfied in order to

use ejusdem generis is specific words forming genus followed by general words. Where such words do not exist at
all, the court cannot use ejusdem generis to prohibit something that the statute has not mentioned at all.

CONCLUSION
From this research paper, the researcher has come into conclusion that canons of interpretation is like a guide to the
courts/judges. By using right canon of interpretation at the right time the courts ensure that ambiguous statutes are
interpreted as per the intent of legislature as far as possible.
Ejusdem Generis is one of those canons of statutory interpretation, which is used when certain general term with
wide scope of meaning follows certain specific terms. We should also know that just because there is specific terms
and general word in a statute this canon of interpretation cannot be used. There are certain conditions that need to
be fulfilled. First of all, as mentioned above there should be certain specific terms which is followed by some general
term. If the general term is followed by specific term this principle cannot be used. Similarly, the specific words should
form certain class or genus. It means, one should be able to categorize the specific words that precede general word
into certain group. Similarly, the category that is formed should not be exhaustive and the judge also has to make
sure that they do not go against the legislative intent while using this principle.
If these conditions are followed then one can use the principle of ejusdem generis. On the question of uniformity of
the decision, the researcher has to concede that the hypothesis that the decisions will not be uniform and proper is
not true. Though, there are certain problems, like if more than one word is required or only one word can form a
genus, the decisions seems to be uniform in most of the cases. Even in cases where ejusdem generis has been
wrongly used, the courts have come into right decisions through wrong means.
Therefore, the researcher here is of the belief that the principle of ejusdem generis has been uniformly used almost
all around the world, with little irregularity once in a while. Courts around the world have tried to use this principle in
cases as exceptions but the researcher believes that Courts could have come to the same decision with almost same
reasoning using other canons of statutory interpretation, so there is no point bending the rule and making it more
complicated. Therefore, these irregularities also can easily be overcome as most of the mistakes researcher found
was on the question of one word genus being used and if the courts are little careful the use of ejusdem generis can
be close to perfect.

[1] Max Radin, Statutory Interpretation, Harvard Law Review, Vol 43, No. 6 (Apr 1930), at 863.
[2] Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, (St. Paul: West Publishing, 2009), at 455.
[3] R. de J R, Statutory Construction. Doctrine of Ejusdem generis, Virginia Law review, Vol. 17, No. 5 (Mar., 1931)
at 511.
[4]Amalia King, Statutory Interpretation Aid: Rules and Language, as sourced from
http://www.amaliaking.co.uk/law/statutory-interpretation/aqa-a-level-study-notes-aids-rules-language. (accessed on
15th December 2011).
[5] Tribhuwan Prakash Nayyar Vs. Union of India , AIR 1970 SC 540.

[6] Supra note 3.

[7]1979 SCR (2) 355.
[8](1908) 2 KB 385.

[9]A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 521.

[10][1943] AC 166.
[11]259 S. W. 169 (Tex. Civ. App. 1924).
[12] Supra note 1.
[13] Francis Bennion, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation,(Halsbury: LexisNexis, 2008) at 1242.
[14]P. St. J Langan, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, (Nagpur: Sweet and Maxwell, 2010) at 298.
[15]44 Mich. 299, 6 N. W. 664 (1880).
[16]1963 SC 864 (29).
[17] (1980) A.C. 744.
[18] [1908] AC 295.
[19] (1818) 8 Taunt 431.
[20] [1944] KB 390.
[21] [2002] EWCA Civ 1634.
[22] Supra note 13.
[23]Allen vs. Emerson, [1944] QBD.
[24] (1987) 1 SCC 101.
[25] (1983) 1 SCR 95.
[26]([1988] 1 WLR 394.
[27]128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008).