EJUSDEM GENERIS

UNIT-5
MEANING- Ejusdem generis

 “Ejusdem generis” means “of the same kind”.

 Where a series of words constituting a class or category or genus are
followed by a general word, then the meaning of such word is
limited to that class or category or genus only.
 If a number of enumeration belonging to same genus are used in a
provision, the meaning of general word following them gets
restricted to that genus itself.
 Maharashtra University of Health and Ors.
V.
S.P. Mandal and Ors
 The Supreme Court in this case has examined and explained the meaning of 'Ejusdem
Generis' as a rule of interpretation of statutes in our legal system. While examining the
doctrine, the Supreme Court held as under:
  The Latin expression “ejusdem generis” which means “of the same kind or nature” is a
principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are
followed by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted
by implication with the meaning of restricted words.
 The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Harishanker,
has laid down the following five essential elements of this rule:
 
(1) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; 
(2) the subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category; 
(3) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;
(4) the general terms follow the enumeration; and 
(5) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.
 Evans v. Cross
(1938) 1 KB 694

 The words “other devices” had to be interpreted in section 48(9) of

the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which defined a “traffic sign” to include
“all signals, Warning sing posts, direction posts, signs, or other
devices”.
 Applying this rule of ejusden generis the court held that a painted
white line on a road could not be called a traffic sign because
devices are things which a painted line on road is not.
 Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI
AIR 1965 SC 1167
 In this case, through the Fruit products order, 1955, issued u/s 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, it was made obligatory that the percentage of fruit juice in a fruit
syrup should be 25.
 The appellant argued that the order did not apply to its product Rooh Afza even though it
contained fruit juices because clause 2(d)(v) of the order includes Squashes, Crushes,
barrelled juice, barley water and ready to serve beverages or any other beverages
containing fruit juices or fruit pulp should be construed as ejusdem generis.
 The Supreme court rejected the contention and held that the rule has no application here
because the things mentioned before the general expression any other beverages
containing fruit juices or pulp did not fall under a determinable genus.
 Further, the context makes it clear that all beverages containing Fruit juice are intended to
be included.
Where the preceding words do not belong to a distinct genus, the
rule of Ejusdem Generis does not apply.

 N.A.L.G.O. v. Bolton Corporation,

 the words 'or otherwise' had to be interpreted in the definition of a
'workman' as any person who has entered into a work under a
contract with an employer whether the contract be by way of
manual labour, clerical work or otherwise: The court refused to
apply the principle of Ejusdem Generis saying the preceding words
manual labour' and 'clerical work' did not form a distinct category to
be called a genus.
 Powell v Kempton Park 
[1899] 2 QB 242
 In this case, When a statutory provision stated that betting was
illegal in a 'house, office, room, or other place  an outdoor betting
ring in a race course could not be considered included because the
statutory list referred only to indoor places. The question arose as to
whether Tattersall's ring fell within the meaning of 'other place'.
 Applying the principles of “ejusdem generis”, the court decided that
the general words had to mean an indoor place as all the other
places on the list were indoor places.
 Noscitur a Sociis
“A word may be known by the company it keeps”
 Noscitur To Know

Sociis Association

To Know from
Noscitur a Sociis
Association
 Noscitur a Sociis

 The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying

words.
 Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of questionable
words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the
meaning of words or phrases associated with it.
 The principle of Noscitur a Sociis is a rule of construction.
 It is one of the rules of language used by court to interpret legislation.
 This means that, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by
the words immediately surrounding it. i.e. The questionable meaning of a doubtful
word can be derived from its association with other words.
 In other words, the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps.
 It can be used wherever a statutory provision contains a word or phrase that is
capable of bearing more than one meaning.
 Pengelly v. Bell Punch Co. Ltd
[1964] 1 WLR 1055 

 In this case, the court had to decide whether a floor used for
storage came under the Factories Act 1961, whereby 'floors, steps,
stairs, passageways and gangways' had to be kept free from
obstruction.
 The court held that as all the other words were used to indicate
passage, a floor used exclusively for storage did not fall within the
Act by applying the principles of Noscitur a sociis.
 Commissioner of Income  Tax v. Bharti cellular
(2008) Del.

 In this case it was held that term ‘technical services’ used in section
194 J of the Income Tax Act is unclear. The word technical would
take colour from the words managerial & consultancy between
which it is sandwiched. These terms ‘managerial services’ &
‘consultancy services’ necessarily involve a human intervention .
 So applying noscitur a sociis the word ‘technical’ would also have
to be construed as involving a human element. Thus,
interconnection & port access services rendered by the assesse do
not involve any human interface & therefore cannot be regarded as
technical services u/s 194 J of the Income Tax Act.
Parsons Brinckerhoff India (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. DIT (Int. Tax)

 Delhi Tribunal in this case applying the rule of Noscitur a Sociis

held that,
 the words ‘model’ cannot fall under definition of ‘royalty’ under
Explanation 2 to section 9 (I) (VI) of the Income Tax Act.
 They have to take colour from the other words surrounding them,
such as, patent, invention, secret formula or process or trade mark,
which are all species of intellectual property.
Pradeep Agarbatti v. State of Punjab
AIR1998 SC 171
 The apex court in Pradeep Agarbatti with reference to the Punjab
Sales Tax Act held that the word, “perfumery’’ means such articles
as used in cosmetics and toilet goods viz, sprays, etc but does not
include ‘Dhoop’ and ‘Agarbatti’.
 This is because in Schedule ‘A’ Entry 16 of Punjab Sales Tax Act
reads as “cosmetics, perfumery & toilet goods excluding
toothpaste , tooth powder kumkum & soap.
 Rainbow steels Ltd v. C.S.T.
[1981] 2 SCC 141

 In this case, Court had to understand the meaning of the word 'old' in the context of an
entry in a taxing tariff which read thus: "Old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete
machinery, stores or vehicles including waste products ..... "
 Though the tariff item started with the use of the wide word 'old', the Court came to the
conclusion that "in order to fall within the expression 'old machinery' occurring in the
entry, the machinery must be old machinery in the sense that it has become non-
functional or non-usable".
 In other words, not the mere age of the machinery, which would be relevant in the
wider sense, but the condition of the machinery analogous to that indicated by the
words following it, was considered relevant for the purposes of the statute.
In Pari Materia
 PARI MATERIA

Statutes sharing a common purpose or relating to

the same subject and which are construed together
  Ameritech v PCS Michigan

 "Statutes in pari materia are statutes sharing a

common purpose or relating to the same subject.
They are construed together as one law, regardless
of whether they contain any reference to one
another."
 Need for pari materia

 The reason behind Judiciary to use this principle is to avoid

contradiction or conflict between/ among statutes dealing with the
same subject matter. It helps to interpret the words of the later
statute in the light of earlier statutes in the same context.
 If the words of a statute has been recognized and interpreted by the
Judiciary in a particular way and it has already gained an
authoritative value, then it is obvious that the statue(s) having
similar words/ context will be dealt in the same manner.
 Situations where pari materia is applicable

Different Acts having same subject matter

 Different Acts having same subject matter has to be read together.

• In Phillips v Parnaby, (1934)2 KB 299, Weight and Measures Act 1889 was
read with the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act 1929.
 Statutes having not exactly same subject matter

It is not necessary that the referring statute and the referred statute will have exactly same subject matter
for calling them as pari materia with each other. Subject matter of the two Acts may not be identical for
application of this rule.

State of Madras v A Vaidyanath Aiyer

AIR 1958 SC 61

Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was held pari materia with the Indian
Evidence Act 1872. The phrase “shall presume’ of Indian Evidence Act was utilized to
construe the meaning of “it shall be presumed” of section 4 of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1947. Both the phrases were given same meaning.
 Later statutes in pari materia with earlier Acts

• Subsequent laws are regarded as supplementary or complimentary to the earlier enactments.

• Generally an earlier Act which is in pari materia with the later Act is used to interpret the later statute.
• While interpreting the provisions of an earlier Act, the provisions of the later Act are normally not taken
into consideration except in few exceptional cases. This kind of interpretation will not be allowed if
the later Act is made to amend the earlier Act, then the later Act operates on its own.
• Later Act will become relevant only when there is some ambiguity or confusion with the meaning of the
earlier Act. It can also be used if the provisions of the earlier Act are giving diverse meaning.
 Aid from subsequent statutes

Smaje v Balme State of Bihar v S. K. Roy

(1965)2 All E. R. 248 AIR 1966 SC 1995

• In this case confusion arose regarding the definition of “coal mine”

In this case to construe the phrase “any
under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act 1948
dangerous or offensive weapon or
before its 1948 amendment.
instrument” of section 28(1) of the
• Court took the assistance of the amendment Act 1948 to define “coal
Larceny Act 1916 reference was made to
mine”.
the Prevention of Crimes Act 1953 and
• The change in the language of s. 2(b) of the earlier Act brought about
section 23(5) of the Firearms Act 1937.
by the amending Act was not meant to bring about a change of law
in this respect but was meant to fix a proper interpretation upon
the earlier Act.
 Vaughn-Hulbert (Re)
4 DLR (4th) 45; 50 BCLR 110

 "Statutes in pari materia not to be treated as one Act. But statutes

which are in pari materia cannot, in the absence of specific
provision to that effect, be treated precisely in the same way as if
they were merely parts of one Act; a provision not found in an
earlier Act cannot, in the absence of indication of clear intention, be
imported into that earlier Act in pari materia."
MENS Rea
 The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be
a wrongful act – actus reus, combined with a wrongful intention -
mens rea.
 This principle is embodied in the maxim, actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea meaning, 'an act does not make one guilty unless the
mind is also guilty'.
 In juristic concept, actus reus represents the physical aspect of
crime and mens rea, its mental aspects, which must be criminal
and co-operate with the first.
 Actus reus has been defined as 'such result of human conduct'.
 Mens rea covers a wide range of mental states and conditions, the
existence of which would give a criminal hue to actus reus.
 Actus reus connotes an overt act, the physical result of human
conduct.
 Act prohibited by Law

 In order to create criminal liability, it is not sufficient that there is

mens rea and an act; the actus must be reus.
 In other words, the act must be one that is prohibited by law.
 Actus reus includes negative as well as positive elements.
 Objective

 The object of law is always to punish a person with a guilty mind.

 It does not want to put behind bars an innocent person who may
have had the misfortune of being involved in a incident and event,
which he did not have the intention of participating in.
 The existence of the mental element or guilty mind of mens rea at
the time of commission of the actus reus or the act alone, will make
the act an offence.
 How to establish mens rea

 As intention is an abstract idea, it is difficult to establish it and the help is taken of surrounding
facts or factors –

(i)Previous relation between the accused and the victim, any object of hostility between them.

(ii)Existence of instigation, i.e. Whether accused was hired and what prompted him to
commit crime; and

(iii)Whether the accused had something to gain out of the whole affair.

Thus, guilty intention is always preceded by a motive or real causal factors.

 In R. Vs. Prince (1875) the accused was an adult person who got an
affair with a girl he believed the girl to be adult as she seems adult
due to physical built up but she is near about 14 Years of age. They
got involved in a relationship.

 The boy was caught and charged with the offence of Kidnapping
and Rape.

 Court said this is a case of strict liability therefore the mens rea can't
be taken as an Excuse.
 Mens Rea in the Indian Penal Code

 Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened
either on the ground of intention, or knowledge or reason to
believe.

 Though the word mens rea as such is no where found in the IPC, its
essence is reflected in almost all the provisions of the Code.
Mens Rea in the Indian Penal Code

 For framing a charge for an offence under the IPC, the traditional
rule of existence of mens rea is to be followed.

 Chapter IV of the Code deals with General Exceptions, wherein acts

which otherwise could constitute offences, cease to be so under
certain circumstances.
Mens rea when not essential (Strict Liability)

 Although mens rea is a sacrosanct principle of

criminal law, it can be waived in certain
circumstances.
 There are some special circumstances under which
the law imposes a strict or absolute liability, and
such cases may be treated as exception to the
doctrine of mens rea.
 Burden of Proof
 When a clause for presumption of mens rea exists in the statute, then the job
of the prosecution is only to prove that the accused committed certain acts.
 Once that is proved, the statutory presumption of mens rea or guilty mind
steps in and the accused is presumed to be guilty.
 But this presumption is always a rebuttable presumption, i.e., the accused
person will be given an opportunity to prove to the court that though the
person had committed certain acts, it was done innocently and without any
criminal intent.
 To this extent, the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt is shifted to the accused.
 It is for the accused to establish his innocence, though, the standard of
proof required is not the same.
STARE DECISIS
There are two types of law – statute law and
common law.
 The first category refers to the law passed by the parliament, it is written and
must be adhered to. The second type is the common law where judges decide
cases by looking at previous decisions that are sufficiently similar and utilize the
principle followed in that case. This is called stare rationibus decidendi, usually
referred to as stare decisis, which means ‘Let the decision stand’.
 Hence a court may be bound by the statutes or by the decisions of the superior
courts. And to understand what judicial precedence and ratio decidendi are, we
must study this area of the legal system ie following case laws and legal
precedents.
 ‘Stare decisis’ means ‘to stand by decided cases’. We have
hierarchy of courts.
 The Supreme Court is at the top of pyramid. It decides cases
with a seal of finality. The decision is an authority for what it
actually decides.
 What is of essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every
observation found therein, and not what logically flows from the
various observations made in the judgment.
 The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question
before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.
 Decision

Ratio decidendi Obiter Dicta

 The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two
components or principles:
 The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is
binding precedent which a lower court cannot overturn.
 The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its
own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and
should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts.
The second principle is an advisory one which courts can and
does occasionally ignore.
 Waman Rao v. Union of India

 Lord Coke aptly described this in his classic English

version as "those things which have been so often
adjudged ought to rest in peace.“
 The underlying logic of this doctrine is to maintain
consistency and avoid uncertainty.
 The guiding philosophy is that a view which has held the
field for a long time should not be disturbed only because
another view is possible.
 Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Asstt. CST,
(1976) 4 SCC 124: it was opined that the doctrine of stare
decisis is a very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be
departed from unless there are extraordinary or special reasons to do
so.
 In Ganga Sugar Corpn. v. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC
223 at page 233, this Court cautioned that, "the Judgments of
this Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for the
nation."
 WHAT IS MEANT BY A PRECEDENT?

 A precedent or authority in common law parlance

means a previously decided case which establishes
a rule or principle that may be utilized by a court
or a judicial body in deciding cases that are similar
in facts or issues.
 TYPES OF PRECEDENTS
 There are different types of precedent within the law.
 ORIGINAL PRECEDENT
 The first is ‘original precedent’ which refers to a case having a point of
law which has never been decided before, then the decision of the judge
in such a case forms an original precedent.
 E.g.. The famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (case of
negligence of the manufacturer and the duty of care he owes to his
customers). In such a case the judge has to reason by analogy and look at
cases that are similar and are closest in principle and thus arrive at a
judgment by using similar reasoning.
 TYPES OF PRECEDENTS
 AUTHORITATIVE OR BINDING PRECEDENT
 As the name suggests authoritative precedent or decision (binding
decision) is one which judges must follow whether they approve it
or not.
 It is also known as mandatory precedent or binding authority.
 As per the doctrine of stare decisis, a court lower in the hierarchy
follows and honours the findings of law made by a court higher in
the hierarchy. The decisions of lower courts are not binding on
courts higher in the system.
 Lower courts are bound by precedent (that is, prior decided cases)
of higher courts within their region.
 TYPES OF PRECEDENTS

 PERSUASIVE PRECEDENT
 And a persuasive decision or precedent is one which the judges are
under no obligation to follow but which they will take into consideration
and attach as much weight as it deserves.
 It is a precedent that the court need not follow, but may consider when a
decision is being made as it is relevant and might be useful. Persuasive
precedent comes from many places. Courts lower in the hierarchy can
create a persuasive precedent.
 These cases could be cases that are decided by lower courts, or courts
equivalent in the hierarchy or in some exceptional circumstances, cases
of other nations, judicial bodies of the world etc.
 Once a persuasive precedent has been adopted by a higher court it
becomes a binding precedent for all the lower courts that time onwards.
 Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,
(1989) 2 SCC 754

 This Court has enunciated the importance of doctrine of

binding precedent in the development of jurisprudence of
law: ".
 Taking note of the hierarchical character of the judicial
system in India, it is of paramount importance that the law
declared by this Court should be certain, clear and
consistent.
Reddendo singula singulus
 Where a complex sentence has more than one
subject, and more than one object, it may be
the right construction to render each to each,
by reading the provision distributively and
applying each object to its appropriate
subject.
 EXAMPLES
 I eat and drink bread and milk.
 Firemen, policemen, and doctors in a
hospital. Here "in a hospital" only
applies to doctors and not to firemen or
policemen.
Koteshwar Vittal Kamat vs K Rangappa Baliga

 This rule has been applied in this case, in the construction

of the Proviso to Article 304 of the Constitution which
reads,
 "Provided that no bill or amendment for the purpose of
clause (b), shall be introduced or moved in the legislature
of a state without the previous sanction of the President".
 It was held that the word introduced applies to bill and
moved applies to amendment.
Generalia Specialabus Non Derogant
 The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant means
general things do not derogate from special things.
 The term “derogate” means to take away merit or to
lessen the value.
 Therefore, according to this maxim, the general law
cannot derogate from the special law.
 If a special provision exists on certain matter, that
matter shall be governed by such special provision
only.
 The special law, always overrides general law but
the overriding effect is restricted to the extent of
inconsistency between the two.
 The object of this rule is to avoid any confrontation between two
enacting provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in
such a way so that they harmonize.
 Where it is impossible to give effect to both the conflicting
provisions, then head on collision should be avoided by holding that
apparently conflicting provisions deal with separate situations, or
one conflicting provision deals with the general rule and other
merely provides for an exception to it.
 S. Prakash v. KM Kurian

 The special provision stands as an exceptional proviso upon the

general.
 If, however, it appears from a consideration of the general
enactment in the light of admissible circumstances that Parliament's
true intention was to establish thereby a rule of universal
application, then the special provision must give way to the
general.“
Delegata potestas non potest delegari

 Delegata potestas non potest delegari is a principle in constitutional and 

administrative law that means in Latin that "no delegated powers can be further
delegated." Alternatively, it can be stated delegatus non potest delegare ("one to
whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power").
 In India, the law was first stated in A K ROY v. State Of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC
326, that sub delegation of delegated power is ultra vires to the Enabling Act.