INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Union
of India v. Manraj Enterprises, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1081, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the rule of ejusdem generis in the field
of statutory interpretation.
DICTIONARY MEANING
Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines ejusdem
generis as “a canon of construction that when a general word or
phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be
interpreted to include only items of the same types as those listed.”
Ejusdem generis is not to be confused with noscitur
a sociis that means that “the meaning of an unclear word or phrase
should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.” Basically,
noscitur a sociis has a general connotation and it provides that there
exists a relationship between words or phrases that are associated to each other
whereas ejusdem generis is a rule wherein it is postulated that a
general word or phrase may derive its meaning from the specific category or
class of words that surround it. In order to understand more about ejusdem
generis, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that “the rule
of ejusdem generis guides us that where two or more words or phrases which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are to be
understood to mean in their cognate sense and take colour from each other but
only if there is a distinct genus or a category. Where this is lacking i.e.,
unless there is a category, the rule cannot apply.”
Secondly, the Court noted that the rule of ejusdem
generis “is applicable when particular words pertaining to a clause,
category or genus are followed by general words. In such a situation, the
general words are construed as limited to things of same kind as those
specified.”
Thirdly, the Court warned that “the rule of
ejusdem generis has to be applied with care and caution. It is not an
inviolable rule of law, but it is only permissible inference in the absence of
an indication to the contrary.”
Fourthly, the Court noted that if a narrow
construction happens on the basis of ejusdem generis and such narrow
construction or interpretation seems alien to the intention of the Parliament,
then a broader interpretation should be adopted in such cases by taking
recourse to the principle of purposive construction to give effect to the intention
of the Parliament.
And lastly, the Court cited the case of Quazi
v. Quazi, [1980] A.C. 744, wherein a drawback of the rule of ejusdem
generis was explained. It was stated 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 fulfil the purpose of the statute. The rule like many other
rules of statutory interpretation, is a useful servant but a bad master.”
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Thus, in conclusion, following important points
emerge: -
a. A general word or phrase derives its meaning
from the specific words or phrases that surround it.
b. In order to attract ejusdem generis, there
must a specific or distinct genus or category that should surround the general word
or phrase and without such distinctiveness, the rule shall not apply.
c. The purpose of ejusdem generis is to reconcile
incompatibility between the specific and general words and construing a statute
or a legal provision as a whole.
d. The rule of ejusdem generis must not be
applied where the intention of the legislature is not to restrict the meaning
of a general word or phrase.
e. Like many other rules of statutory
interpretation, ejusdem generis is a useful servant but a bad master.
Therefore, I hope that the meaning and the nature
of ejusdem generis as a tool of statutory interpretation is clear by
now.
No comments:
Post a Comment