Statute interpretation is the process of determining the meaning of a law passed by a legislative body. It is the process by which courts interpret and apply statutes. The goal of statute interpretation is to determine the intent of the legislature in enacting the law, and to apply that intent to the facts of a particular case.

There are several different methods of statutory interpretation that courts may use, including:

• The plain meaning rule: The court looks at the plain language of the statute to determine its meaning.
• The legislative history: The court looks at the history of the legislation, including committee reports and debates, to determine its meaning.
• The canons of construction: The court looks at the principles and rules that have been developed to guide the interpretation of
• statutes, such as the principle of ejusdem generis.
• The purposive approach: The court determines the purpose behind the statute and interpret it accordingly.
• The golden rule: The court looks at the language of the statute, the context of the statute, the legislative history of the statute, the purpose of the statute, and the consequences of a particular interpretation of the statute.
• Courts may also consider the constitutional implications of a statute and whether it is consistent with the Constitution.
• It's important to note that different courts may interpret a statute differently, and that the interpretation of a statute may evolve over time as society changes.
   

The principle of ejusdem generis is a legal principle that states that when a list of specific items is followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to include only items of the same type as those specifically listed. In other words, the principle states that when a statute uses specific words, followed by general words, the general words will be given a restricted meaning, limited to the same class or genus as the specific words. This principle is often applied in statutory construction and legal interpretation.

This paper discusses the principle of Ejusdem Generis in detail with respect to Interpretation of Statutes.

Meaning
'Ejusdem Generis' is a Latin term and the meaning of it is "of the same kind and nature".

According to the Black's Law Dictionary (8th edition, 2004.), "the principle of Ejusdem Generis is where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by particular and specific words. Not only these general words are construed but also held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind as those specifically enumerated."

This doctrine is also called Lord Tenterden's Rule, which is an ancient doctrine. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis provides that when a list of specific words are being followed by the general words, the general words are interpreted in a way so as to restrict them to include the items or things which will be of the same type as those of the specific words. In the case of Evans v. Cross [(1938) 1 KB 694], the Court had applied the ejusdem generis rule.

The issue was in relation to the interpretation of the word "other devices". It was under the definition of "traffic signals" under Section 48(9) Road Traffic Act, 1930, to include "all signals, warning sign posts, signs, or other devices". The Court held that a painted line on a road cannot be included in the "other devices" as a traffic sign because devices are here indicating a thing, whereas painted line on a road is not.

The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is a canon of interpretation, which is used by the Courts for providing the Justice, by interpreting according to the intention of the legislation so as to make the provision of legislation clear and unambiguous and thus fulfilling the purpose of the legislation.

Need For The Doctrine
The need for interpretation of statute by the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis arises when:

• There is ambiguity in the language of the provisions of statutes, or
• When in the provision, there is a possibility of two views, or

The meaning which the provision of a statute gives, defeats the purpose of the statute. There is no need for the interpretation if in the language there is no ambiguity and it is clear. Unless the context requires, the natural meaning should be given to the general words normally. In the case of Lilawati Bai v. Bombay State, 1957 Supreme Court, the Court observed that "where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, the Court must give those words their plain and ordinary meaning."

But when reading, it is found that there is some ambiguity in the provisions of the statute and the intent of the statute is to restrict the general words to the category of the specific words, then this doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied. Therefore, when general words follow the specified words and those specified words have a genus/category then the general words will be restricted to the same genus/category. This is done because the legislation has shown its intention by using such words of class/category and if the Court goes contrary to that intention and gives wider meaning to the general words then the purpose of the legislation will be defeated.

Essentials Of The Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis

In the case of Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, 1972 and Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Harishanker, 1979 the Supreme Court laid down the five essential conditions for the application of this rule.

The conditions or the elements are as follows:

• The statute contains an enumeration of specific words,
• The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category;
• That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;
• The general terms follow the enumeration; and
• There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

Thus, it can be seen that for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis, there has to be an enumeration of specific words and those words should necessarily be of a class or a genus and there such genus or class should not be exhausted. Also such specific words must be followed by the general words. And most importantly there was no contrary intention of the legislation. That means that the intention of the legislation was there to restrict the general words by the doctrine of ejusdem generis.

As can be seen from the above discussion the two most important elements for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis are: the specific words should constitute a particular class or genus and the intention of the legislation should be there for such restriction of the general words.

Class or genus of the specific words

In order to invoke the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis for its application, a distinct 'category' or 'genus' must be present. "The specific words must apply not to different objects of widely different character but to something which can be called a class or kind of object". This implies that the enumeration of specific words preceding the general should necessarily constitute a distinct genus: it must be of some class. Then only after the application of ejusdem generis the general words can be restricted to the same class or genus.

In various ways, classes can be defined, however, in order to unlock the true value of this doctrine, the key is to make sure that the class which is identified should have some objective relationship with the purpose of the statute. If we say in a different manner, in the aim of the statute and in its subject (which are revealed in the intention of the legislation), the basis is there which determines which among various definitions of classes is correct.

There should be an Intention of the Legislation

Further, for the application of the rule of Ejusdem Generis, there should be an intention of the legislation for the same. Meaning that when the specific words were forming a genus or a class, followed by a general word, it can be seen that the intention of the legislation was there to restrict the general words to include the thing of the same class as that of specific words.

Hence, it is necessary that there was a clear intention of the legislation for interpretation of its provision through doctrine of ejusdem generis.

Cases Where Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Was Applied

Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd v. UOI, 1989 Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the rule of ejusdem generis while interpreting the general words 'any other process' under section 2(f) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 read with Notification Number 230 and 231 dated 15-07-1977. This general word followed the specific words which were "bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberizing, shrink-proofing, organic processing". The Court here by applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis held that "the specific words from a class of process which is importing a change which is of lasting nature. And therefore 'any other word' must share one or any other of that process/incident".

Kerala Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd v. CIT, (1988) 170 ITR 455 (Ker).

The Court in this case, interpreted the meaning of the phrase "'Body of Individuals", which was provided in the section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. The phrase was alongside "'Association of Persons". The Court by applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis held that "Body of Individuals" will have to be understood with the same context, meaning and background which are provided to the words "Association of Persons".

In this decision, the court was required to interpret the meaning of the phrase 'Body of Individuals'. It has said that in construing the words 'Body of Individuals' occurring in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act along-side the words 'Association of Persons', the words 'Body of Individuals' would have to be understood in the same background, context and meaning given to the words "Association of Persons'.

Limitations For The Application Of Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis

As it has been previously discussed, for the application of rule of Ejusdem Generis, some essential conditions are necessary to be fulfilled. Among which the most important are the existence of a genus/class in the specified words and that the intention of the legislation was there to read the statute in that way. The same has been held in two of the landmark cases mentioned earlier. From that it can be easily deduced that, when this doctrine is not applicable. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis cannot be applied in the following conditions:

If the general words are there before the specified words then this doctrine cannot be applied. Therefore it is necessary that specific words must be followed by the general words. Department of Customs Vs Sharad Gandhi, 2019 SC

If the specific words in the provision of the statute which have been followed by the general words do not form a distinct genus/class then this rule cannot be applied. As this is the most important factor to restrict the general word to the same genus of the specified words by using the rule of ejusdem generis.

In the case of Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd, 1964 SC, the Court stated that whenever the specific words are followed by general words, the interpretation of ejusdem generis does not need to be applied. Before such interpretation, there must be a category or a genus constituted so that the general words with reference to it can be restricted, as intended.

Also the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be applied if the general word follows only one word as that one word cannot form a distinct class/genus. However there is an exceptional instance to this that if the general word if is following a one word genus which has been created by the court then that general word can be restricted to that genus of one word.

If the specified words exhaust the whole genus/class then this doctrine is not applicable and in these cases the general word will be given a wider meaning or a different genus/class as those specified words have already exhausted the whole genus and nothing would be left to be included in the general words.

The same has been laid in the "Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh", that if the words preceding the general words not only form a mere specification of a class/genus but also it forms the whole description of that genus/class then this rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied. The insurance in the 'policy of insurance', were provided an option for the termination of the policy if they so desired "by reason of such change or from any other cause whatever".

Here the words "by reason of such change" can include any and each and every act which is done to the insured property, whereby the risk of fire increases. Here Lord Watson stated that, in the case, "In the present case, there appears no room for its application. The antecedent clause does not contain a mere specification of particulars but the description of a complete genus"

If there is a contrary intention of the legislation for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis, then this rule cannot be applied. In many decided cases, it has been held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis is "not an inviolable rule of law". It is "permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary". This doctrine is also one of the cardinal canons of interpretations and therefore, no interpretation of a statute can be done in a manner so as to cause a part of it "otiose". The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagan Gagansingh Nepali, 2011 Bombay High Court.

Improper Use Of Ejusdem Generis: Miscarriage Of Justice

The application of doctrine of ejusdem generis must be done very cautiously. As by using this rule there is a departure from the natural meaning of the words so that those meanings can be given to them which the legislation had intended so as to fulfill its purpose. This rule has to be on the basis of the fundamental rule that "that the statutes must be construed so as to carry out the object sought to be accomplished".

Thus this rule requires that there must be a genus constituted by the specific words for which the general words would be restricted and if the context provides for any contrary intention so as to give the terms a wider meaning then this rule cannot be applied. Therefore, it should be applied cautiously as to where it must be applied and where not. If the conditions necessary for the application are there, then this rule can be applied.

However, where the conditions are not fulfilled and there exist those circumstances which were discussed earlier for non application of this rule, even after this if the Court applies this rule, then it will be a diversion from what the purpose of the legislation was and hence there will be a miscarriage of justice.

There are many instances where the Courts have improperly used the rule of Ejusdem Generis, even when it cannot be applied in those cases. Even when there was no distinct genus of specified words or when genus of specified words were exhausted or when only one word was there before general words, the rule of Ejusdem Generis was applied by the Courts. The Courts also applied this rule in some cases where there was no legislative intent to restrict the wider meaning of the general term.

The Courts by improperly using the rule of Ejusdem Generis, changes the whole meaning of the provision and thus defeats the purpose of the Act, as to the intent of the legislation. This results in miscarriage of Justice.

State Of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, 1955 Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in this case held that the decision of the High Court was in error and therefore it rejected the decision of the High Court and concluded that the High Court had not used the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis properly and the doctrine should not have been applied in this case.

Maharashtra University Of Health And Others v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Others, 2010

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in this case held that the High Court was wrong in its Judgment by wrongly applying the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis when there was no room for its applicability.

Conclusion
The principle of ejusdem generis is a legal principle that states that when a list of specific items is followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to include only items of the same type as those specifically listed. In other words, the principle states that when a statute uses specific words, followed by general words, the general words will be given a restricted meaning, limited to the same class or genus as the specific words.

For example, if a statute lists specific items such as "dogs, cats, and birds" and then includes a general term such as "animals," the general term "animals" would be interpreted to include only animals of the same type as dogs, cats, and birds, which would be domesticated animals.

The principle of ejusdem generis is used to avoid the interpretation of general words that would give the statute an overly broad or vague meaning. It helps to narrow the scope of general terms, providing a clearer understanding of the intent of the law.

I hope that this paper has served its purpose and has made a clear understanding of the principle of 'Ejusdem Generis' with respect to the interpretation of statutes.