Ejusdem Generis — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Ejusdem Generis

A statute banned betting in a “house, office, room or other place”. Did “other place” include an open-air area at a racecourse? In Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) the House of Lords said no — the specific words (house, office, room) were all enclosed places, so “other place” meant other enclosed places, not an open ground. General words take their meaning from the specific class before them. That is ejusdem generis, and it decides the recurring “others” problem.

What is ejusdem generis, and when does it apply?

Ejusdem generis [of the same kind/class] is the rule that where general words follow an enumeration of specific words belonging to a particular class or genus, the general words are confined to things of the same class as the specific ones — they are not given their widest possible meaning.

So in “house, office, room or other place”, the general “other place” is read as other place of the same kind (enclosed places), because the specific words form a class of enclosed places.

The conditions for the rule to apply (all must be present — Amar Chandra Chakraborty, Siddeshwari Cotton Mills):

The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.
The specific words form a class or category (a distinct genus) — they have a common characteristic.
That class is not exhausted by the enumeration (there is room for other members of the class).
The general words follow the specific words (not precede them).
There is no contrary intention — nothing in the context showing the general words were meant to have their wider, independent meaning.

When the rule does NOT apply:

Where the specific words do not form a distinct genus (they are a random, unrelated list) — then the general words keep their wide meaning.
Where the specific enumeration exhausts the whole class.
Where the context or a definition shows the general words were intended to be wide (e.g. “or any other person whatsoever”).

⚠️ Do not apply ejusdem generis mechanically to every “and others”. First check that the specific words form a genus and there is no contrary intention — otherwise “others” keeps its full width, and cutting it down would be an error.

Principle (ejusdem generis): “Where general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words are confined to things of the same kind as those specified, unless a contrary intention appears.”

In Simple Terms: When general words (“or others”, “or other place”) come after a list of specific words that form a class, the general words are limited to things of that same class. But this works only if the specific words really form a genus and nothing shows the general words were meant to be wide.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Reading “others” in the tariff clause

Facts. An Electricity Act lets the Board fix tariff having regard to “the nature of the supply, the geographical location, the purpose for which supply is required and others”. The Board reads “others” at large to justify any classification.

Rule. Ejusdem generis confines general words following specific words of a class to that class, if the conditions are met and no contrary intention appears.

Apply. The specific factors — nature of supply, location, purpose — form a genus of supply-related considerations. “Others” is read as other factors of that kind (supply-related), not any factor whatever, absent a clear contrary intention.

Conclusion. “Others” is confined to further supply-related factors of the same class; the Board cannot use it to justify an unrelated classification. “‘Others’ read at large” is the decoy.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["General words follow specific words"]:::root
    ROOT --> A{"Do the specific words form a genus?"}:::dec
    A -->|"No / random list"| B["General words keep WIDE meaning"]:::leaf
    A -->|"Yes"| C{"Class not exhausted & no contrary intent?"}:::dec
    C -->|"Yes"| D["Ejusdem generis: confine 'others' to the class"]:::leaf
    C -->|"No"| B
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef dec fill:#FFE8C2,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) — “house, office, room or other place” confined to enclosed places; the classic ejusdem generis case.
U.P. State Electricity Board v Harishankar (1979) — general words following specific ones of a class are read ejusdem generis.
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v Collector of Excise, Tripura (1972) — lays down the conditions for the rule; it applies only where the specific words form a genus.
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills v Union of India (1989) — restates the conditions; ejusdem generis does not apply where there is a contrary intention.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics