Case Title: Waseem Qureshi v. UT of J&K  

The Jammu & Kasmir & Ladakh High Court held that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise, the intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where the intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given a broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability. 

The Court further relied upon the case of Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay, where the Apex Court explained the rule of “ejusdem generis” in the context of Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (BLR Act). It was held by the Court that the words “or otherwise” used in the Explanation (a) to Section 6 of BLR Act intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clauses and that the legislative intent was to cover all possible cases of a vacancy occurring due to any reason whatsoever. It was further observed that the legislature used these words in an all-inclusive sense and that rule of “ejusdem generis” should not be applied to whittle down the scope and ambit of the provisions of a statute where the legislative intent was to the contrary.

The Court also specifically held in the above-referred case that," The rule of ejusdem generis is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature on the established rule of construction that the legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning. In our opinion, in the context of the object and mischief of the enactment, there is no room for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis. Hence it follows that the vacancy as declared by the order impugned in this case, even though it may not be covered by the specific words used, is certainly covered by the legal import of the words "or otherwise".