Ejusdem Generis Rule | Latin Maxims | Interpretation of Statutes | скачать в хорошем качестве

Ejusdem Generis Rule | Latin Maxims | Interpretation of Statutes |

In this video we will know about Ejusdem generis Maxim A Latin phrase meaning "of the same kind". The rule requires that where in a statute there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specifically mentioned. Ejusdem generis means "of the same kind" and is more restricted than the word analogous. It is for application in the construction of statutes. In the instant article the doctrine has been comprehended by applying it to Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. If the specific words do not belong to a distinct. Genus, this rule is inapplicable. Consequently, if a general word follows only one particular word, that single particular word does not constitute a distinct genus and, therefore, Ejusdem Generis rule cannot be applied in such a case. Doctrine of Ejusdem generis | Maxim Interpretation of Statutes | Law Lecture #doctrine #ejusdemgeneries case law #notes of this video👇🔗   / 298243805331242   Instagram channel   / lawlecture88   Facebook page   / lawlecture88   Telegram Channel https://t.me/lawlecture88 ‪@LawLecture‬ Ejusdem Generis Rule | Latin Maxims | Interpretation of Statutes latin maxims latin phrase doctrine of ejusdem generies Ejusdem Generis – When a list of two or more specific descriptors are followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them e.g. vehicles in “cars, motorbikes, motor powered vehicles” would be interpreted in a limited sense and therefore cannot be interpreted as including air planes. The ejusdem generis, or ‘of the same genus’ rule, is similar though narrower than the more general rule of noscitur a sociis. According to this rule, when particular words pertaining to a class or a genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to the things of the same kind as those specified by the class or the genus. The meaning of an expression with wider meaning is limited to the meaning of the preceeding specific expressions. However, for this rule to apply, the preceeding words must for a specific class or genus. Further, this rule cannot be applied in the words with a wider meaning appear before the words with specific or narrow meaning. In UP State Electricity Board vs Harishankar, AIR 1979, SC held that the following conditions must exist for the application of this rule – 1. The statue contains an enumeration of specific words 2. The subject of the enumeration constitute a class or a category 3. The class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration 4. A general term is present at the end of the enumeration 5. There is no indication of a different legislative intent Justice Hidayatullah explained the principles of this rule through the following example – In the expression, “books, pamphlets, newspapers, and other documents”, private letters may not be held included if “other documents” be interpreted ejusdem generis with what goes before. But in a provision which reads, “newspapers or other documents likely to convey secrets to the enemy”, the words “other documents” would include documents of any kind and would not take their meaning from newspaper. This was also illustrated in the case of Ishwar Singh Bagga vs State of Rajasthan 1987, where the words “other person”, in the expression “any police officer authorized in this behalf or any other person authorized in this behalf by the State government” in Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act, were held not to be interpreted ejusdem generis because the mention of a single species of “police officers” does not constitute a genus. It can be seen that this rule is an exception to the rule of construction that general words should be given their full and natural meaning. It is a canon of construction like many other rules that are used to understand the intention of the legislature. This rule also covers The rank principle, which goes as follows – Where a string of items of a certain rank or level is followed by general residuary words, it is presumed that the residuary words are not intended to include items of a higher rank than those specified. By specifying only items of lower rank the impression is created that higher ranks are not intended to be covered. If they were, then their mention would be expected a fortiori. For example, the phrase “tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever” was held not to include persons above the artisan class. Similarly, the phrase “copper, brass, pewter, and tin, and all other metals” in a local Act of 1825 was held not to include precious metals such as gold and silver.