Delhi High Court Says Principle of 'Noscitur a Sociis' Doesn't Apply Only Where Word's Meaning Is Uncertain

The Delhi High Court has rejected a review petition that challenged the court's interpretation of the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles in a recent ruling, saying they are intended to be exceptions to the applicability of an expression's normal etymological meanings in the statute.

The principle of ejusdem generis requires a specific word that is found in the company of other words that constitute a genus to be also interpreted as belonging to the same genus. According to Justice C. Hari Shankar, the principle of a component is defined as a word that is to be understood in the light of the company it keeps.

The court ruled that when evaluating a word, both principles should take priority over connotation if they apply.

Therefore, there is a critical flaw in the argument that the rule of an only applies when the term in question has a vague meaning.The etymological meaning of the word must give way to its understanding as would result from applying the principle, even though the meaning of the word is clear and well understood from its etymology "The court stated.

In the review petition, advocate Brijesh Gupta contended that the court used the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles incorrectly. According to Gupta, a doctrine would only be applicable in situations where the word's meaning is in question. He continued by asserting that the etymological definition of the term "unnecessary" is clear-cut and that it simply means "not necessary."

The court determined that because the terms "unnecessary," "scandalous," "frivolous," and "vexatious" are all used in the same sentence to describe a specific type of pleading, "the word 'unnecessary' cannot be allowed its straight run and effect and has to take colour from the word scandalous," "frivolous," and "vexatious," respectively."

The court further stated that to apply the ejusdem generis principle, it is vital to comprehend the contrast between the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles. It was added that using both of these concepts would result in comprehension of an expression utilised in a statute in light of the expressions in the company in which it is located.

The ejusdem generis principle only applies when the individual words that follow a generic word collectively define a genus. If they constitute a genus, the generic term must also be limited to the genus represented by the supporting words. If the terms in the statute do not form a genus, the principle applies, and the general word must be understood in light of the meaning of the words with which it is related "The court stated.

Because the terms "scandalous," "frivolous," and "vexatious" describe a specific genus of pleading, according to Justice Shankar, the ejusdem generis concept would also be applicable.

The court agreed that, in the majority of instances where the ejusdem generis principle is used, the general word comes after the specific words, rejecting the argument that the general principle only applies when the general word comes after the specific word and not when the general word comes before the specific words.

According to what it said, "To my information, there is no decision that holds that the ejusdem generis idea does not apply if the specific words follow the general phrase."

The court dismissed the review petition, observing that no case for review of the decision on that ground could be made.