UNIT VIII
EJUSDEM GENERIS &NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
SUSIDIARY RULES FOR LITERAL INTERPRETATION
A. Noscitur a Sociis
• Noscitur a Sociis literally means “It is known from its associates”.
• Under the doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" the questionable meaning of
a word or doubtful words can be derived from its association with
other words within the context of the phrase.
• This means that words in a list within a statute have meanings that
are related to each other.
• For example purse means clutch, Tote bag and sling bag even if it has
not been mentioned expressly.
• The term 'vehicle' includes cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other
motorized conveyances."
• Here, if a question arises about whether a bicycle is considered a
"vehicle", the doctrine of noscitur a sociis suggests that since the
surrounding words refer to motorized vehicles, a bicycle (which is not
• The definition of “data” in the IT Act 2000 includes
"a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts or instructions which are being prepared or
have been prepared in a formalized manner and is
intended to be processed, is being processed or has
been processed in a computer system or computer
network."
• Whether a handwritten note would likely fall under
the definition of "data" in the IT Act.
•If a question arises about whether a
handwritten note qualifies as data
under the IT Act, applying Noscitur a
Sociis, we observe that the surrounding
words relate to computer processing
and networks.
• The term prize chits, money circulation schemes, and
other similar schemes in the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The
Supreme Court held that other similar schemes
should be interpreted in the context of the surrounding
words. Since prize chits and money circulation
schemes involve financial fraud, other schemes
covered by the law must also involve fraud.
• Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 (India)
• The Act defines "invention" as a new product or
process involving an inventive step and capable
of industrial application.
• If a dispute arises about whether an artistic
work qualifies as an invention under Noscitur a
Sociis
•The surrounding words "product,"
"process," and "industrial application"
indicate that artistic works are not
inventions since they lack industrial
applicability.
In Commrs. v. Savoy Hotel, (1966) 2 All ER 299.
While dealing with the Purchase Tax Act, which
used the expression ‘manufactured beverages
including fruit-juices and bottled waters and
syrups etc.’, The question was whether orange
juice unsweetened and freshly prepared comes
within the description or not.
• It was held that the description ‘fruit juices,
as occurring therein should be construed in
the context of the preceding words and the
orange juice unsweetened and freshly
prepared was not within the description
Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana vs State Of Punjab & Others on 23 October,
1997
• The appellant is a registered dealer in 'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti' and we are
concerned with its assessment to sales tax thereon under the provisions of the
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, for the period 1973-74.
• Entry No.16 of Schedule A to the said Act. at the relevant time read thus;
• "Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding tooth-paste, tooth-power,
kum-kum and soap,"
• The appellant was sought to be made liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 10 paisa
in a rupee, as was leviable upon items falling under the said Entry No.16, on the
basis that 'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti' were covered by the word "perfumery" therein
which was contented
• The word "perfumery" in the context in which it, is
used has, therefore, no application to 'dhoop' and
'aggarbatti’ as it dosent come under personal hygiene
product.
• Perfumes and cosmetics are used on the human body
for beautification or fragrance. Agarbatti (incense
sticks) is not used on the body but rather for religious
and aromatic purposes
B. CASUS OMISSUS
• The term ‘omissus’ means “cases of omission”.
• Omission in a statute cannot be supplied by
construction.
• A matter which should have been provided in a
statute cannot be supplied by the courts.
• A casus omissus cannot be supplied by courts by
judicial interpretative process except in the case of
clear necessity and when the reason for it’s found in
the four corners of the statute itself.
• The first and primary rule of the construction is that
the intention of the legislature must be found in the
word used by the legislature itself.
C. EJUSDEM GENERIS
• When particular words pertaining to a class, category are followed by general
words, the general words are construed as limited to the things of the same kind
as those specified. This rule which is known as the rule of ejusdem generis.
• WHEN THERE IS CLEAR CATEGORY FOLOWED BY WORDS WHICH ARE NOT CLEAR.
EX: IN ANY CASE/ANY OTHER/SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES/SIMILAR NATURE/OR
ORTHERWISE /WHATSOEVER/
In Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Harishanker, the Supreme Court has
laid down conditions that needs to be fulfilled for this rule of construction is
used. They are:
• The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.
• The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category.
• There is no indication of a different legislative intent.
• Characteristic of words are not changed
Difference between Noscitur A
Sociis and Ejusdem Generis Rule
Noscitur A Sociis Ejusdem Generis
Latin term meaning ‘recognised by its partners’ Latin term meaning ‘of the same kind
Used for interpreting questionable words in Used for interpreting loosely written statutes
statutes.
It is broader in concept. This rule puts the word into It is narrow in concept. This rule puts the word into
consideration the whole phrase. consideration the nearby words.
Meaning of doubtful words can be known from the If a statute list specific classes of things then it has to
accompanying words or its association of words be referred as general
• In Evans v. Cross the words 'other devices' had to be
interpreted in Section 48 (9) of the Road Traffic Act,
1930 which defined a 'traffic signals' to include 'all
signals, warning sign posts, direction posts, signs, or
other devices'. Applying the rule of Ejusdem Generis
the Court decide whether a painted white line on a
road could be called a traffic signal or not.
• Applying the rule of Ejusdem 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
• Sign or post are physical objects placed beside or
above the road, white line on the road are not
included in the definition of "traffic sign."
Emperor v/s Ratansi Hirji
• Section 412 -A of the Bombay Municipal Act required a
person to acquire a license before he could use any
place for the sale of milk, butter or other milk products.
• Ratansi Hirji was a merchant who was dealing with ghee
without obtaining license. The State prosecuted him for
not obtaining license. The question before the court was
whether ghee would came within the expression 'other
milk products' and whether a person does obtain a
license for the sale of ghee
• THE COURT HELD THAT THE WORD ‘OTHER MILK PRODUCT’ SHOULD
BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT PRECEDED THOSE
WORDS. BY APPLYING THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS THE COURT
HELD THAT GHEE IS NOT OF THE SAME NATURE AS BUTTER AND
MILK. MILK AND BUTTER ARE SUBJECT. GHEE IS NOT LIABLE TO
SPEEDY DECAY. THUS IT IS NOT OF SAME NATURE OF GHEE AND
BUTTER.
• It will not be disputed that "ghee" is derived from milk but can it be said
of "ghee" as it can be said of cream, butter, whey or curd that it is a
direct product of milk
• For one thing "ghee" is not subject to the same speedy decay as these
products of milk along with milk are. In this respect "ghee" does not
resemble milk to the same extent as these products of milk do.
• "Ghee" is made from melted butter. Pure "ghee" no doubt is derived
from milk, as it is made from butter which is a product of milk. "Ghee",
however, is not the same as butter. It possesses certain qualities, e, g.,
durability, which make it distinct from butter. In many respects "ghee"
and butter are put to different uses. Hence not guilty
State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan (1955)
SCR 867
• A rent control law applied to “inns, hotels,
lodging houses, or other places of public
accommodation.”
• The issue was whether private clubs fell
under “other places of public
accommodation.”
• The court ruled that since all specified
places were open to the general public,
private clubs, which restricted membership,
were not covered under other places of
public accommodation.
• Ishwar Singh Bindra, a medical practitioner, was prosecuted for violating Section 3
of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The
Act prohibited advertising any drug for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment,
or prevention of any disease, disorder, or other condition.
• The accused argued that the phrase “other condition” should be interpreted in line
with the preceding words (diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of
disease or disorder) under the ejusdem generis rule.
• Issue Whether other condition should be interpreted broadly to include minor
ailments, or if it should be restricted to serious medical conditions like the
preceding words.
When a general word follows specific words, the general word
should be interpreted in the same category as the specific words. In
this case, other condition should be interpreted in light of disease
and disorder, meaning it applies only to serious health conditions.
The Court emphasized that the purpose of the law was to prevent
misleading advertisements for serious medical conditions, not
minor health issue
•
Foster v. Diphwys Casson (1887) 18 QBD
428
•A law required that explosives should not
be taken into a room, office, or other
place where persons are employed in any
manufacturing process.
•The issue was whether a tunnel fell within
"other place."
• The court applied the ejusdem generis rule and ruled that “other place” must be
interpreted in line with the specific words preceding it—room and office, both of
which are enclosed working spaces. A tunnel inside a mine was not of the same
nature as a room or office, so it did not fall within the prohibition.
• · Specific words: Room, Office
• · General words: Other place
• Since rooms and offices are enclosed working spaces, “other place” should be
enclosed. A tunnel was not included because it was not of the same kind.
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills v. Union of India
(1989) 2 SCC 458
•The Excise Act imposed duties on “wool,
silk, cotton, or other like materials.” The
issue was whether synthetic fiber was
covered under “other like materials
• The Supreme Court applied ejusdem
generis and held that since the listed
materials were all natural fibers, “other like
materials” should also be natural. Synthetic
fibers did not qualify.
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal
• The Maharashtra Universities Act required
university affiliations for science, commerce,
arts, or other educational institutions.
• The question was whether a medical
college was included.
• The Supreme Court held that since the
specified words referred to general
education disciplines, “other educational
institutions” had to be interpreted in the
same light. Medical colleges, which required
specialized regulation, were excluded.
Ashbury Railway Carriage and
Iron Co v Riche (1875) LR 7 HL
653***
• The rule of ultra vires was for the first time laid down by the
House of Lords in Ashbury Railway Carriage Company
case. In Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company was
incorporated and in its memorandum the objects of the
company were as to make and sell or lend on hires
railway carriage and wagons, to carry on the business
of mechanical engineers and general contractors and
to purchase, lease, work and sell mines, minerals,
land and buildings.
• The company entered into the agreement for financing the
construction of a railway line in Belgium with Riche and all
the members ratified the agreement.
• Later on the company repudiated the contract and
subsequently stopped the funds on the ground that it was
ultra vires the company and consequently Riche instituted a
suit for damages for the breach of contract against the
company. Contentions raised by Riche were that the contract
was well within the meaning of words ‘general contractors’
and therefore within the power of the company and the
contracts were ratified by the majority of the shareholders.
• It was Held by the House of Lords that the contract was
beyond the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association.
The term general contractors indicate those contracts which
are connected with the business of mechanical engineers.
Even if all the shareholders or members agree or desire to
make contract valid it would amount to go beyond the objects
of the memorandum. Hence, the court held it to be ultra vires.
• It held that if a company pursues objects beyond the scope of the
memorandum of association, the company's actions are ultra vires
and void. Lord Cairns LC said,
• It was the intention of the legislature, not implied, but actually
expressed, that the corporations, should not enter, having regard to
this memorandum of association, into a contract of this description.
The contract in my judgment could not have been ratified by the
unanimous assent of the whole corporation. (NOSCITOR A SOCIIS)
Union of India v. Alok Kumar, (AIR 2010 SC 2735)**
• A simple but question of some significance under
service jurisprudence falls for consideration in the
present appeals, whether or not under the relevant
Rules and provisions of the Act, the Railway
Authorities have the jurisdiction to appoint a
retired employee of the Department as `Inquiry
Officer' within the ambit of Rule 9(2) of the
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1968 (for short referred to as `the Rules’).
• Rule 9. Procedure for imposing major penalties (1) No order
imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule
6 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in
the manner provided in this rule and Rule 10, or in the manner
provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850)
where such inquiry is held under that Act.
• (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there
are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour against a railway servant, it may
itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the
provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as
the case may be, [a Board of Inquiry or other authority] to
inquire into the truth thereof. (ejusderm generis)
