Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Chapter Thirty-Two
Syllabus topic 4.1, "Secondary Rules or Subsidiary Rules of Interpretation- Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis, Reddando Singula Singulis ..."
Pages 240 to 246 of 314
In one line
These three rules tell you how a word takes meaning from the words beside it: noscitur a sociis says a doubtful word is coloured by its company, ejusdem generis says a general word following a list of a single class is confined to that class, and reddendo singula singulis says that where a sentence has several subjects and several objects, each is referred to the one it belongs with.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: noscitur a sociis means that a word is known by the company it keeps, so that the meaning of a doubtful word may be gathered from the words associated with it; ejusdem generis, of the same kind or nature, means that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things of a particular class, the general words are construed as limited to persons or things of that same class, provided the specific words form a genus; and reddendo singula singulis means that where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequences, they are to be read distributively, each phrase or expression being referred to its appropriate object.
Why they are called secondary or subsidiary
Because they do not tell a court what a provision is for. They are tools of language, applied after the primary rules have failed to settle a doubt, and every one of them yields to a clear contrary intention.
That subordinate status is not a formality. Two of the three, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, apply only where there is a doubt, and a court that uses them to create a doubt has used them backwards. The authority for that limit is State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, worked below.
Noscitur a sociis
The rule
A word is known by the company it keeps. Where a word of uncertain meaning stands among other words, the associated words may be used to fix its meaning, on the footing that the legislature grouped them because they belong together.
The authority, and its limit
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610.
Facts. State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610. Two ward servants of the J.J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay, which was under State control and management, were retrenched without the compensation required by section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They applied to the High Court for a writ. Everything turned on whether a State-run hospital is an "industry" within section 2(j), which defines industry to include any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers.
Held. The hospital was an industry, and payment of compensation under section 25F(b) is a condition precedent to a valid retrenchment. On construction the Court refused to cut down the word "undertaking" by applying noscitur a sociis to the narrower words around it, holding that the maxim is a rule of construction which can apply only where the intention of the legislature in associating terms of wider import with those of narrower import is in doubt, or the meaning of the wider terms used is in doubt. It added that a profit motive and the investment of capital are not indispensable requisites of an industry, and that only what can properly be described as regal or sovereign activity falls outside the definition.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Why it matters. It is the standard authority for the maxim and for the half students omit: noscitur a sociis is not a licence to narrow every wide word that keeps company with narrow ones. Without a doubt, it has nothing to work on.
An illustration
A provision speaks of "houses, buildings, walls, fences and other erections". Standing alone, "erections" could mean anything erected, including a scaffolding put up for a day. In that company it means something of the same physical and reasonably permanent character.
Ejusdem generis
The rule
Ejusdem generis means "of the same kind or nature". Where general words follow an enumeration of specific words, the general words are construed as confined to things of the same class or genus as the specific words.
The authority
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1019.
Facts. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1019. Unprocessed cotton fabric was exempt from excise duty under two notifications. The appellant, which made cotton fabric on power looms, subjected it to "calendering", a finishing process, and the excise authorities held that the fabric thereby ceased to be unprocessed. Section 2(f)(v) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 spoke of "bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process". Duty and a penalty of one lakh rupees were levied, and the Tribunal held that calendering need not belong to the same genus as the enumerated processes.
Held. The expression ejusdem generis signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class or genus as those preceding them; where a list or string or family of genus-describing terms is followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class, and if no class can be found the rule is not attracted and the broad construction the subsequent words may admit will be favoured. On the facts, the enumerated processes shared the characteristic of imparting a change of a lasting character to the fabric, so "any other process" had to share that incident, and the matter went back to the Tribunal to decide whether calendering did.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Why it matters. It supplies the controlling condition rather than the label: the rule fails at once if the specific words do not form a genus.
The conditions
Five, and an answer that lists all five is a full answer.
One, the statute contains an enumeration of specific words.
Two, the members of the enumeration constitute a class or genus. This is the condition Siddeshwari insists on. If the specific words have nothing in common, there is no genus and the rule does not apply.
Three, the class is not exhausted by the enumeration. If the specific words have named every member of the class, the general words must have been intended to go beyond it, or they would be meaningless.
Four, the general words follow the specific ones, rather than preceding them.
Five, there is no contrary intention. A statute that says "or any other thing whatsoever, whether or not of the same kind as the foregoing" has excluded the rule in terms.
The relation to noscitur a sociis
Ejusdem generis is a species of noscitur a sociis. Both say that a word takes colour from its neighbours. Ejusdem generis is the narrower and more disciplined form: it applies only to general words following an enumeration, and it requires a genus. Noscitur a sociis is wider and applies wherever associated words can resolve a doubt.
Reddendo singula singulis
The rule
Reddendo singula singulis means "by referring each to each" or "rendering each to each". Where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequences, they are to be read distributively: each phrase or expression is referred to its appropriate object rather than to all of them.
The authority
Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co., AIR 1969 SC 504.
Facts. Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co., AIR 1969 SC 504. The Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act 5 of 1950 continued in force a prohibition on forward trading in coconut oil. The Bill for that Act had been introduced in the State legislature before the Constitution came into force, was then amended by a Select Committee, and was moved and passed after the Constitution. The proviso to article 304(b) of the Constitution provides that no Bill or amendment shall be introduced or moved in the legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President. The question was whether the Act was bad for want of that sanction. The High Court had read the proviso distributively and held the Act invalid.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Held. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not correctly appreciated the position, and that the proviso is to be read on the maxim reddendo singula singulis, which, as Black's Interpretation of Laws puts it, means that where a sentence in a statute contains several antecedents and several consequences they are to be read distributively, that is to say, each phrase or expression is to be referred to its appropriate object. Read that way the proviso means "no Bill shall be introduced" and "no amendment shall be moved", and reading both verbs as applying to both nouns would do violence to the rules of construction.
Why it matters. It is the Indian authority for the maxim, and it shows the rule doing real work on a constitutional provision rather than being illustrated by an invented sentence.
The classic illustration
"I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A." A person devises real property and bequeaths personal property. Read distributively, the sentence means "I devise all my real property and bequeath all my personal property to A", which is what the testator plainly intended.
A worked example
A fictitious Public Order Act provides:
9. No person shall carry into a public meeting any knife, sword, dagger, spear, axe or other weapon, or shall shout, sing or otherwise disturb the proceedings.
Three prosecutions.
Ashok carries a can of pepper spray. Ejusdem generis. Apply the five conditions. There is an enumeration: knife, sword, dagger, spear, axe. Do they form a genus? Yes, and Siddeshwari requires exactly this to be asked: they are all bladed or edged implements capable of causing injury by cutting or piercing. Is the class exhausted? No, a machete or a bayonet would also fall within it. Do the general words follow? Yes, "or other weapon". Is there a contrary intention? No. So "other weapon" is confined to the genus, and pepper spray, which incapacitates chemically rather than by cutting, falls outside it.
Change the list to "knife, gun, explosive, acid or other weapon". Now ask the second condition again. Those four have nothing in common except that they can injure, and Siddeshwari says that if no class can be found the rule is not attracted and the broad construction is favoured. So "other weapon" is read widely and pepper spray is caught. That one change is the whole point of the second condition.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Bharat hums quietly at the back. Noscitur a sociis. "Otherwise disturb" stands with "shout" and "sing", which are loud and deliberate. If "disturb" is genuinely doubtful, the company colours it, and humming is not of that kind. But Hospital Mazdoor Sabha is the warning: the maxim applies only where the intention in associating the words, or the meaning of the wider word, is in doubt. If "disturb the proceedings" is clear on its own, the maxim has nothing to work on.
And a drafting variation. Suppose the section had read: "No person shall carry into or shout at a public meeting any weapon or any abuse." That sentence has two antecedents and two objects, and reddendo singula singulis reads it as "no person shall carry into a public meeting any weapon, or shout at a public meeting any abuse". Reading each verb with each object would produce nonsense.
Distinctions table
| Noscitur a sociis | Ejusdem generis | Reddendo singula singulis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning | A word is known by its company | Of the same kind or nature | Referring each to each |
| Applies to | Any doubtful word among associated words | General words following an enumeration | A sentence with several antecedents and several consequences |
| Requires | A genuine doubt | A genus in the specific words, among five conditions | Several subjects and several objects |
| Effect | Narrows or fixes the doubtful word | Confines the general words to the class | Distributes each expression to its own object |
| Authority | Hospital Mazdoor Sabha | Siddeshwari Cotton Mills | Koteswar Vittal Kamath |
| The five conditions of ejusdem generis |
|---|
| 1. The statute enumerates specific words |
| 2. Those words constitute a class or genus |
| 3. The class is not exhausted by the enumeration |
| 4. The general words follow the specific ones |
| 5. There is no contrary legislative intention |
What these do NOT mean
Noscitur a sociis does not narrow every wide word in a list. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha holds that it applies only where the intention in associating the words, or the meaning of the wider word, is in doubt.
Ejusdem generis does not apply wherever general words follow specific ones. If the specific words form no genus, the rule is not attracted and the general words are read broadly.
Ejusdem generis is not a rule about the general words being surplus. Where the enumeration has exhausted the class, the general words must go beyond it, or they mean nothing.
Reddendo singula singulis is not a licence to redistribute a sentence to taste. It applies where the structure genuinely pairs several subjects with several objects.
None of the three survives a contrary intention. They are aids, and the words of the Act govern.
Limits and criticism
"Genus" is not defined, and whether four listed items form a class is a judgment on which reasonable people differ. Siddeshwari itself sent the question back to the Tribunal rather than deciding it.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
Ejusdem generis can defeat the evident intention. A draftsman who adds "or any other" usually means to catch what he has not thought of, and the rule can cut that down to nothing.
The three overlap, and a court applying "the ordinary meaning in context" is often doing what all three describe without naming any of them. The maxims are a vocabulary for a habit of reading rather than three separate machines.
Quick revision
Noscitur a sociis: a word is known by the company it keeps. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610: applies ONLY where the intention in associating words of wider with narrower import, or the meaning of the wider word, is in doubt. A hospital is an "industry"; profit motive and capital are not indispensable; regal or sovereign functions are outside.
Ejusdem generis: general words following an enumeration are confined to the class. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills, AIR 1989 SC 1019: the preceding words must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class, and if no class can be found the rule is not attracted. Five conditions: an enumeration; a genus; the class not exhausted; the general words following; and no contrary intention. It is a species of noscitur a sociis.
Reddendo singula singulis: several antecedents and several consequences are read distributively, each expression referred to its appropriate object. Koteswar Vittal Kamath, AIR 1969 SC 504: the proviso to article 304(b) means "no Bill shall be introduced" and "no amendment shall be moved". Illustration: "I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property."
Test yourself
1. State noscitur a sociis and the limit placed on it in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha.
The maxim means that a word is known by the company it keeps, so that the meaning of a doubtful word may be gathered from the words associated with it. The limit is that it is a rule of construction which can apply only where the intention of the legislature in associating terms of wider import with those of narrower import is in doubt, or where the meaning of the wider terms used is itself in doubt. Applied to section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Court refused to use the maxim to cut down "undertaking" and held that a State-run hospital is an industry.
2. List the conditions for the application of ejusdem generis.
The statute must contain an enumeration of specific words; those words must constitute a class or genus, which Siddeshwari Cotton Mills makes the controlling condition; the class must not be exhausted by the enumeration, since otherwise the general words would be meaningless; the general words must follow the specific ones rather than precede them; and there must be no contrary legislative intention, such as an express statement that the general words are not confined to the preceding class.
Secondary Rules: Noscitur a Sociis, Ejusdem Generis and Reddendo Singula Singulis
3. What happens if the specific words form no genus?
The rule is not attracted at all, and the general words are given the broad construction they will bear. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills states it in terms: the preceding words of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class, and if no class can be found the ejusdem generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will be favoured. This is why the composition of the list, and not merely its existence, has to be examined.
4. State reddendo singula singulis and give an illustration.
The maxim means that where a sentence in a statute contains several antecedents and several consequences, they are to be read distributively, each phrase or expression being referred to its appropriate object. The classic illustration is "I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A", which is read as devising the real property and bequeathing the personal property, since one devises land and bequeaths goods. In Koteswar Vittal Kamath the Supreme Court read the proviso to article 304(b) the same way, as meaning that no Bill shall be introduced and no amendment shall be moved without the previous sanction of the President.
5. How is ejusdem generis related to noscitur a sociis?
Ejusdem generis is a species of noscitur a sociis. Both proceed on the idea that a word takes colour from the words associated with it. Noscitur a sociis is the wider maxim and applies wherever a doubtful word stands among others that can resolve the doubt. Ejusdem generis is the narrower and more disciplined form: it applies only where general or sweeping-up words follow an enumeration of specific words, and it requires that the specific words form a genus.
6. Why are these called subsidiary rules?
Because they are tools of language rather than guides to the object of the Act, and they are used only after the primary rules have left a doubt. Two of them apply expressly only where there is a doubt, so a court that reaches for them to manufacture one has inverted the method; and every one of them yields to a clear contrary intention in the statute, since they are aids to finding what the legislature meant by the words it used and not rules that operate against those words.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.