This article has been written by Ms. Aadya Sharma, a 3^rd year BBA.LLB (Hons) student from Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow.

INTRODUCTION

Interpreting legal documents, such as statutes, contracts, and regulations, frequently includes filling in language ambiguities or gaps left by the authors of the papers. The application of the ejusdem generis concept is one typical method by which courts and attorneys fill in the blanks. This Latin expression, which means “of the same type or nature,” is a construction rule that aids in limiting the use of a generic term by making reference to specific examples that come before it. The ejusdem generis principle is used to enhance consistency and predictability in legal interpretation as well as to prevent overbroad or unexpected meanings of a term or phrase. 

The ejusdem generis principle is frequently applied to legal texts that contain vague or ambiguous language. Courts frequently interpret general terms to only encompass objects of the same sort or kind as the specific instances when a statute contains a general phrase followed by a list of specific examples. This interpretation aids in ensuring that the statute’s language is consistently implemented and that the authors’ intentions are respected.

Ejusdem generis has many advantages, including preventing too expansive interpretations of the law that can have unforeseen or ludicrous consequences. Courts and Lawyers can more precisely ascertain the reach of a given statute or contract provision by limiting the general term to the particular examples that come before it.

MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF ‘EJUSDUM GENERIS’

The meaning of “ejusdem generis” is “of the same kind or nature.” It is a statutory construction principle that is applied to interpret ambiguous language in contracts and other legal documents like statutes. By interpreting a general phrase in light of the specific words that come before it, which are often of a similar character or category, the rule works to narrow the meaning of a general term. 

For instance, “animals such as dogs, cats, and rabbits,” the phrase “such as” suggests that the term “animals” as a whole should only be read as referring to animals of the same kind or nature as dogs, cats, and rabbits. This rule is predicated on the assumption that the specific terms used before the broad term are there to define its meaning and range of application. 

The relevance of “ejusdem generis” in legal interpretation is that it aids in ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the terminology used in legal documents. The rule prohibits overly wide or unintended interpretations that can result in inconsistent or arbitrary results by limiting the meaning of general terms to specific examples or groups. As a result, laws and contracts are more likely to be comprehended and upheld in accordance with their intended purposes. It also encourages clarity and predictability in legal language.

In general, the ejusdem generis concept is a cornerstone of legal interpretation that aids in ensuring that the language used in legal documents is used consistently and correctly. This rule is used by judges and legal professionals to clarify issues and make sure the authors’ intentions are upheld. 

APPLICATION OF EJUSDUM GENERIS

The principle of ejusdem generis has been applied in various articles of the Constitution of India. Here are a few examples:

• Article 19(2): This provision ensures the freedom of expression, subject to some justifiable limitations. Public order, morality, or decency are among the limits. These expressions can be interpreted as only referring to constraints that are of the same kind or nature as “public order, decency, or morality” using the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Article 30(1): This provision grants minorities the freedom to found and run the educational institutions of their choosing. The term “minorities” is used in the article, and it is followed by clear instances, such as “based on religion or language.” The term “minorities” can be used to refer to only those groups that are comparable in nature to those based on religion or language by applying the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Article 245: The right to enact legislation is granted by Article 245 to both the national and state legislatures. The phrase “any matter” is used in the text as a generalisation, and then specific instances like “with respect to any of the issues in the Union List or the Concurrent List” follow. The phrase “any matter” can be understood to indicate just those topics that are comparable in nature to those specified in the Union List or the Concurrent List by using the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Article 13(3): This section of the Constitution addresses the application of pre-constitutional regulations that are at odds with the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III. The phrase “law in force” is used in the article as a generalisation, followed by specific examples such “custom or practise bearing the force of law.” The word “law in force” can be understood to signify only those laws that are comparable in nature to conventions or usages bearing the force of law by applying the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Article 312: The formation of All India Services is covered in this section. The phrase “any other service” is used in the article, and is followed by more specific instances such “the Indian Administrative Service” and “the Indian Police Service.” The phrase “any other service” can be interpreted in accordance with the concept of ejusdem generis to indicate only those services that are comparable to the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service.

CASE LAWS

• G. P. Singh v. State of U.P. (1985): The phrase “any other thing” in Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 was interpreted in this case by the Supreme Court under the ejusdem generis principle. The phrase should only be used to refer to things that are comparable in nature to those things that are specifically stated in the section, the court said.
• The State of Gujarat v. Chhatbhai (1979): In this case, The High Court of Gujarat used the ejusdem generis concept to interpret the phrase “any other vehicle” in the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 The court decided that the phrase should only be used to refer to cars that are essentially the same as those that are stated in the section.
• Sivakasi Municipality v. Ramaswami Naidu (1965): The Madras High Court used the ejusdem generis concept in this case to interpret the phrase “any other trade” in the Tamil Nadu Local Boards Act, 1920. According to the court, the phrase should only be used to refer to dealings that are analogous to those that are specifically stated in the provision.
• State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (2013): The phrase “any other place” in Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was interpreted by the Supreme Court in this case using the ejusdem generis concept. The court decided that the phrase should only be used to refer to locations that are comparable to those that are specifically named in the provision.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the legal principle known as ejusdem generis is frequently applied in statutory interpretation to clarify the meaning of general terms that appear after specific ones. The rule ensures that generic terms are construed in the context of specific ones and are not given a wider meaning than the legislator intended.

To ensure consistent and correct interpretation, the principle of ejusdem generis has been used in various articles of the Indian Constitution. Its use has aided in ensuring that the Constitution’s wording is consistently interpreted and that the authors’ intentions are duly upheld.

Ultimately, the idea of ejusdem generis is a key instrument for ensuring that phrases are understood clearly and consistently when interpreting statutes and other legal documents.

REFERENCES

1. Article 19(2) of Constitution of India, 1950.
2. Article 30(1) of Constitution of India, 1950.
3. Article 245 of Constitution of India, 1950.
4. Article 13(3) of Constitution of India, 1950.
5. Article 312 of Constitution of India, 1950.
6. G. P. Singh v. State of U.P. (1985).
7. The State of Gujarat v. Chhatbhai (1979).
8. Sivakasi Municipality v. Ramaswami Naidu (1965).
9. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (2013)
10. Dr. J.N. PANDEY’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA: FIFTY EIGHTH EDITION.
11. https://bnblegal.com/ejusdem-generis/
12. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-doctrine-of-ejusdem-generis/#:~:text=Meaning%20and%20definition,by%20particular%20and%20specific%20words.
13. https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/608373/?big=2&formInput=ejusdem%20generis#:~:text=To%20invoke%20the%20application%20of,class%20or%20kind%20of%20objects. 

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening