Secondary rules: noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis, reddendo singula singulis, expressio unius

1. Why secondary rules

The primary rules tell the court what it is looking for: the meaning of the words, the mischief, the purpose. The secondary rules are working tools for the most common difficulty, which is a word or phrase of uncertain width appearing in a list or alongside other words. They rest on the idea that the legislature chooses its words in groups, so a word takes its colour from its neighbours.

2. Noscitur a sociis

The maxim means that a word is known by the company it keeps. Where two or more words capable of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood in their cognate sense; each takes its colour from the others. A wide word placed among narrow ones is cut down to their level.

• Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 INSC 164, (1990) 3 SCC 447. An exemption notification gave a concessional rate to paper, with an exception for certain kinds of paper, including “coated paper”, listed alongside industrial varieties. The Court applied noscitur a sociis and held that “coated paper” in that exception meant only coated paper used for industrial purposes, not coated varieties of printing and writing paper.
• Foster v. Diphwys Casson (1887) is the classic English illustration: a regulation on explosives taken into a mine in a “case or canister” was read to mean a container of the same kind as a canister, so that a cloth bag would not do.

The limit. The rule is an aid where the meaning is doubtful. It cannot be used to narrow words that the legislature has deliberately made wide. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960 INSC 15, AIR 1960 SC 610, it was argued that “undertaking” and “calling” in the definition of “industry” in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should be restricted by the company of “business”, “trade” and “manufacture”, so as to exclude a Government hospital. The Court refused: noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of construction, and it cannot prevail where the legislature has used wide words deliberately to make the definition exhaustive and wide. A hospital run by the State was held to be an industry.

3. Ejusdem generis

The maxim means “of the same kind”. Where general words follow a list of specific words which form a class or genus, the general words are read as limited to things of the same kind as the specific words. The reason is that if the legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would not have troubled to list the particular things.

The conditions for its application were stated in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Tripura, 1972 INSC 136, (1972) 2 SCC 442:

• the statute contains an enumeration of specific words;
• the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category;
• that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;
• the general term follows the enumeration; and
• there is no indication of a different legislative intent.

Illustrations and limits:

• Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co. (House of Lords, 1899). “House, office, room or other place” used for betting was held not to include an open-air enclosure: the specific words all denoted indoor places, and “other place” was confined to that genus.
• Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 INSC 18, (1989) 2 SCC 458. Construing “any other process” at the end of a list of processes applied to cotton fabric under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Court stressed that for the rule to apply the preceding words must represent a genus, and the general words take their meaning from it.
• Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay, 1957 INSC 22, AIR 1957 SC 521. An Explanation in the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 treated premises as vacant when the occupier ceased to occupy them on the termination of his tenancy, eviction, or assignment or transfer of his interest, “or otherwise”. The Court declined to apply ejusdem generis to “or otherwise”, since the specific words did not form a single genus; the general words were given their natural wide meaning.

4. Reddendo singula singulis

The maxim means “referring each to each”. Where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents, they are read distributively, each consequent to its appropriate antecedent. The textbook example is a provision that “if anyone shall draw or load any sword or gun”: it is read as “draw any sword or load any gun”, since one does not load a sword or draw a gun. The rule is used where reading every word with every other would produce nonsense, and its use is a matter of common sense rather than technical rule.

5. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

The maxim means that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. If a statute lists particular persons or things to which it applies, others of the same kind not listed are presumed excluded; if it gives a remedy in one case, it is presumed not to give it in another not mentioned. It is closely related to the presumption that a change of language indicates a change of meaning.

It must be used carefully. The omission may be accidental, the listed items may be examples rather than a closed list, or the matter may be dealt with elsewhere. In Colquhoun v. Brooks (1888) the maxim was described as a valuable servant but a dangerous master; it is not to be applied where its application leads to inconsistency or injustice. Where a definition uses “includes”, the maxim has little force, because “includes” signals that the list is not exhaustive.

6. How the secondary rules relate to the primary rules

None of these maxims is a rule of law. They are presumptions about how language is used, and they give way to a contrary intention appearing from the words, the context, or the object of the Act. In Hospital Mazdoor Sabha the object of the industrial law and the width of the definition defeated noscitur a sociis; in Lilavati Bai the absence of a genus defeated ejusdem generis. A good answer ends with that point.

How this is examined

For the 10-mark question: define both maxims, state that ejusdem generis is an application of noscitur a sociis, give Rohit Pulp and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha for the first, the five conditions from Amar Chandra Chakraborty and Powell v. Kempton Park, Siddeshwari and Lilavati Bai for the second, and finish with the comparison. For a 6-mark note on any single maxim, the meaning, one illustration and the limit are enough. The June 2025 problem on conviction without guilty knowledge under the food adulteration law, set in this Unit, is worked in the note on penal and taxing statutes.