Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute penalises 'any person who drives a bus, truck, car or other vehicle' on a notified pedestrian-only lane. Ramesh pushes a hand-cart loaded with vegetables along that lane, and the authority prosecutes him. Applying the ejusdem generis rule, what is the correct position?

Ramesh is not liable. Under ejusdem generis, the general words 'other vehicle' are read in the same class as the specific words before them, namely motorised vehicles like bus, truck and car. A hand-cart does not belong to that class, so the penalty does not reach it.

  1. ARamesh is liable, because 'other vehicle' covers every conveyance without limit
  2. BRamesh is not liable, because 'other vehicle' takes its meaning from the preceding motorised vehicles and does not cover a hand-cartCorrect
  3. CRamesh is liable, because penal statutes are always read as widely as possible against the accused
  4. DRamesh is not liable, because general words in a statute are always ignored

Explanation

Under ejusdem generis, general words that follow specific words of the same class are limited to that class. Bus, truck and car are motorised vehicles, so 'other vehicle' means similar motorised vehicles. A hand-cart is not of that kind. The first option ignores this limiting effect, and the last option is wrong because general words are not ignored but only restricted.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Interpretation of Statutes questions