This article is written by Kalpana Kumari of 3rd Semester of National University of Study And Research in Law, Ranchi
ABSTRACT
Noscitur a sociis is a legal maxim which is used to clear the doubtful words written in the statute so as to find the clear meaning of the word. However, many of us don’t know how it is used by the Courts for the interpretation of statutes. Therefore, this paper aims to provide an overview of the maxim ‘noscitur a sociis’, where it is used and when it is not used.
The article is divided into three categories including the introduction of the paper, the main theme of the article and the conclusion to provide a clear picture to the readers about the article and to understand it in a better way. Firstly, I have explained noscitur a sociis, then I moved to its applicability and to prove those rules for applicability, I have used some Supreme Court cases in order to understand them it in a better way.
However, this maxim is not always used for the interpretation, there are certain exceptions too for the use of the maxim and to support this, some case laws are cited for a better understanding. Lastly, there is a differentiation between ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis as there are certain similarities between the two but the differences are more to keep in mind as to avoid confusion. I have concluded the article writing the gist of my article.
This research paper would help the readers to develop a clear knowledge about noscitur a sociis and they can understand it in an easier way.
Keywords – Interpretation of words in statute, ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis
INTRODUCTION:
Every part of the law, including every word and phrase, must be viewed in the context of how it will be applied rather than on its own. Every element of the provision must be given a specific meaning and impact in the situation in which it is made. Given this context, the judiciary has devised the noscitur a socii rule to give effect to the fundamental norm.
Every word has a purpose in every sentence, so each word has two meanings: one is its denotation, and the other is its connotation. The difference between a word’s denotation and connotation is how the term is used in the phrase and how it affects the meaning of the sentence.
Noscitur a sociis is a legal maxim in which noscitur means to know and the meaning of sociis is an association. The literal meaning of this maxim is it is known by its association or to know from the association. According to Merriam Webster, it is a doctrine or rule of construction which means the meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word should be determined by considering the words with which it is associated in the context. [1]
This maxim is used when:
- The meaning of unclear words by the words surrounding it.
- When two or more words that are comparable to one another are combined, their cognate sense is assumed to be utilised.
- To clear the doubt of ambiguous word and then this maxim is used
Applicability of the rule:
The applicability of the maxim comes into existence when the meaning of the word or phrase is doubtful or where a particular expression when taken singly is inoperative.
Example: section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act Transfer:
It is also used when the associated words have similar meaning, when the intention of the legislator is not clear and when the words or phrases are capable of bearing more than one meaning.
In the case of Commissioner of sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhan Das Tokersey[2], Bombay High court applied the principle of noscitur a sociis. It held that there are many things which have delegate fragrance rise rose, jasmine but they are not called perfumes. Sandalwood oil and sandal may be used as an ingredient to make perfume it cannot be said to be perfume explicitly.
In the case of Pardeep Agarbatti v. State of Punjab[3], appellant was a registered dealer in ‘dhoop’ and ‘aggarbatti’ and he was asked to pay taxes at the entry of 10 paisa in a rupee as he is selling the items falling under the Entry No. 16 of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 which read as “Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding tooth – paste, tooth – power, kum – kum and soap.” Supreme Court held that perfumery means such articles as used in cosmetics and toilet goods viz, sprays, etc but does not include ‘dhoop’ and ‘agarbatti’
K. Janardhan Pillai v. Union of India [4] was the case used for understanding foodstuffs, the Supreme Court applied the principle of noscitur a sociis and read the full sentence of 2(a)(v) of the Central Act. It held that foodstuffs are associated with edible oilseeds which have to be processed before the oil in them can be consumed, so it is appropriate to interpret foodstuffs in the wider sense as including all articles of food which may be consumed by human beings after processing. Hence, raw cashew nut is a foodstuff under Section 2(a)(v) of the Central Act, hence cannot be declared as an essential article under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Act. The declaration made by the State Government was quashed.
EXCEPTIONS OF THIS RULE:
The scope of this principle is limited to the extent mentioned above. It is applied only when the meaning of the law or any word in the statute is not clear or it is full of ambiguity. If there are no clear problems with the understanding or interpretation of the law, then this rule cannot be used.
In the case of State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha[5], Sections 25F(b) and 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are involved in this case. This is the landmark case which brought ‘Hospitals’ under the scope of industry, defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The main issue in this case was whether hospitals come under industry or not?
Supreme Court held that section 25F(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 used a mandatory language of the section is plain and unambiguous in effect. The court ruled that any employee who has worked for the employer for a year or longer continuously in the industry should not be let go without receiving the retrenchment compensation, which must equal the salary of 14 days of the average pay of each year of service completed, or any portion thereof, as described in Section 25. The object and scope of the Act is clear that the legislature is defining the word Industry was deliberately using the term of wide import in its first clause. The second part of the definition provides inclusive definition. If the definition has deliberately used words of such wide import, it would be necessary to read those words in their wide denotation and so Hospital cannot be excluded from the definition. Supreme Court held that it is unsuitable to apply ‘noscitur a sociis’ so as to restrict its meaning.
The rule cannot be applied where the arrangement of the word has a clear meaning and not any problem which can cause problem in interpretation. If the intention of legislature is apparent, then also it cannot be used as they may have intentionally included the law.
When the word is defined in the Statute then the principle of noscitur a sociis cannot be applied like the word dishonestly used in the theft of Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly has already been explained under Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code.
By using the rule what is already excluded cannot be included.
When the Legislature gives the words a broader connotation, this rule cannot be used to narrow down the meaning of words.
Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd v. Shankar Prasad[6] – the Supreme Court held that dismissal and discharge do not have the same similar meaning so the principle of noscitur a sociis cannot be applied.
In the case of Alamgir v. State of Bihar[7], there was an ambiguity in the word ‘detention’ under Section 498 of IPC. The Supreme Court then, held that though the word detains means detention against will, this meaning cannot be attributed to the word here because the expression should be demonstrated in the light of other words in its company. This means that the word detain should be interpreted with reference to the expression takes, entices and conceals used under section 498. The word detains, therefore, should mean detention without the consent of the husband.
Therefore, these requirements must be met in order to apply this section. They are:
- the criminal must lure the wife of another person away from another person; conceal the wife of another person from another person; or detain the woman from another person.
- The wife must be lured, taken, hidden, or detained from another person with the intention of engaging in an unlawful relationship with her.
In the case of State of Assam v. R Muhammad [8], the Supreme Court made use of the principle of noscitur a sociis to arrive at the meaning of the word ‘posting’ used in Article 233(1) of the constitution. It held that since the word “posting” occurs in association with the words “appointment and promotion”, it took its colour from them and so it seems “assignment of an appointee or a promotion to a position” does not mean the transfer of a person from one station to another.
In that case, it was decided that “transfer” refers to a stage that occurs after appointment and promotion and that the term “posting” does not necessarily entail transfer. According to Article 233, the Governor is only responsible for the appointment, promotion, and posting of district judges to the cadre; he or she is not responsible for transferring district judges who have already been appointed, promoted, and posted to the cadre. The latter clearly pertains to the High Court’s “control” of district judges, which is granted by Article 235.[9]
In the case of Pengelly v. Bell Punch Co. Ltd[10], the court had to decide whether a floor used for storage came under the factories act 1961, where floor steps, stairs, passageways and gangways had to be kept free from obstruction. The court held that as all other words are used to indicate passage, a floor used exclusively for storage did not fall within the act.
RELATION BETWEEN NOSCITUR A SOCIIS AND EJUSDEM GENERIS:
In the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras,[11]the rule of ejusdem generis was established. It was stated that the rule should only be used when general terms follow other words, and these other words all fall under the same general category. The rule “is not an inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible inference in the absence of a contrary indication,” it has also been said in this instance.
In Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., [12]the court held that other items mentioned in the statute related to places indoors whereas Tattersall’s enclosure was outside and hence no offence was committed. The court here applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis.
The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is broader than the doctrine of ejusdem generis because:
In ejusdem generis, meaning of general word is extracted from the specific words written before that word if the specific words create a genus or they have the similar meaning (like or otherwise.). Whereas, noscitur a sociis is used when the associated words have the same meaning.
Ejusdem Generis is a narrower principle whereas, noscitur a sociis is a wider principle.
Ejusdem generis is to interpret loosely written statutes, whereas, noscitur a sociis is to interpret questionable words in the statutes.
Ejusdem Generis talks about same kind of things & does not include stuffs that is different in essential nature, whereas, in noscitur a sociis, things should fit in with the realistic of those other things.
If the statute specifically refers to a certain class of objects before making general references to that class, then the general statements only apply to the same kind of objects that were clearly specified then the rule of ejusdem generis is used. Whereas, noscitur a sociis is used for the meaning of a doubtful word can be known from accompanying words or from its association with other words.
CONCLUSION
This article has aimed to give an overview of the doctrine of noscitur a sociis which is used for the interpretation of ambiguous words in the statute or in the law. This doctrine is used when the words are not clear which is been proved by some cases of the Supreme Court. Though there are some exceptions too when the doctrine of noscitur a sociis is not used. When the intention is there to put the words like they are, when the words are defined itself in the statute, when there is no ambiguity. This doctrine can neither be used to narrow down the meaning of some words and nor it restrict the meaning. Noscitur a sociis is wider than ejusdem generis which is also used to interpret the meaning of the word. But ejusdem genris is used only when the word before has the same genus and it is to interpret loosely written statutes.
[1] Noscitur a sociis, Merriam Webster, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/noscitur%20a%20sociis, last seen 15th June 2023
[2] Commissioner of sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhan Das Tokersey, 1983 52 STC 381 Bom
[3] Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 1176/92, 1178/92, 1179/92. (Supreme Court of India, 23rd October 1997)
[4] K. Janardhan Pillai v. Union of India, 1981 AIR 1485, 1981 SCR (2) 676.
[5] State of Bombay v. the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960 AIR 610, 1960 SCR (2) 866
[6] Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd v. Shankar Prasad, [1999] INSC 222.
[7] Alamgir v. The State of Bihar, 1959 AIR 436, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 464
[8] State of Assam v. R Muhammad, Civil Appeal No. 1367 of 1966, (Supreme Court of India, 21st September 1966)
[9] Case laws on Article 233 to 235, Advocate Khoj, available at https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/section9ofcrpc1898/6.php?Title=Section%209%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Criminal%20Procedure,%201898%20-%20Appointment%20of%20Sessions%20Judges,%20Additional%20Sessions%20Judges%20and%20Assistant%20Sessions%20Judges&STitle=Case-law%20on%20Articles%20233%20to%20235, last seen at 16th June 2023
[10] Pengelly v. Bell Punch Co. Ltd, [1964] EWCA Civ J0527-5
[11] Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080
[12] Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., (1899) AC 143
0 Comments