Meaning and concept –

One of the canons of rules of construction and interpretation of statutes is the Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis. Whenever the judiciary is reading any statute, the first step is to try and interpret it literally enshrining literal meaning to the provisions of the statute in question. And so, whenever any ambiguity arises as to the meaning of any part of such statute, laws of interpretation of statutes is used, one such being the doctrine of Ejusdem generis.

This doctrine means that on instances where general words are accompanied by specific words belonging to any particular class, category or genus, such general words are to be such interpreted that their meaning is restricted and in consonance with the times of same kind as specified alongside them. Such interpretation from the preceding class has to be made unless it can be concluded that such general terms were not meant to be restricted by that proceeding word resulting into absurd conclusions. This rule is famously referred as Lord Tenterden’s Rule as the doctrine was first propounded and tested by Lord Tenterden in the case of Archbishop of Canterbury”s case.

Essential requisites to be satisfied for its application-

The essential conditions for the applicability of the doctrine have been enumerated in various landmark judgments like that of Jage Ram v. State of Haryana and Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Exice are-

i.                   Statement must include clear word enumeration

ii.                Enumeration members constitute a class

iii.             Enumeration should not exhaust a class

iv.              Such enumeration should be followed by a general term

v.                 The purpose that the general term be given a wider definition than the theory needs is not clearly manifested.

The Judiciary’s take-

In Tribhuwan Prakash Nayyar Vs. Union of India highlighted the importanc  e of this rule by establishing that this rule 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”.

In Punjab State v. Mehrchand established that "the doctrine of ejusdem generis should not be invoked where the legislature's intention is clear, where it would result in disregarding the plain language of the statute, where a perusal of the statute as a whole indicates that the Legislature intended the general words to go beyond the class specially designated, where the specific things enumerated all objects of another, or where the specific words embroiled all objects of another, or where the.”

Conclusion

This rule should be applied with great care and caution as it is a deviation from the natural sense of terms in order to uncover the true intent of the legislature behind that word or terminology. The law must be governed by the underlying rule that the laws must be read, understood and interpreted in order to achieve the purpose sought by the makers of that legislation.

REFERENCES

·        Archbishop of Canterbury”s case, 76 ENG RPS 519 (1596).

·        Jage Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1033.

·        Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Exice, AIR 1972 SC 1863.

·        Tribhuwan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 540.

·        Punjab State v. Mehrchand AIR 1959 PUNJ 222.

Share this News