Non obstante clause / Notwithstanding - Indian Laws - General

Meaning of word non obstante clause / notwithstanding A non obstante clause is usually used in a provision to indicate that that provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provision mentioned in such non obstante clause. In case there is any inconsistency or a departure between the non obstante clause and another provision one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non obstante clause which would prevail over the other clause. It does not however necessarily mean that there must be repugnancy between the two provisions in all such cases. K. PARASURAMAIAH VERSUS POKURL LAKSHMAMMA- 1964 (12) TMI 60 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram- 1986 (9) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that : 68 It is well settled that the expression notwithstanding is in contradistinction to the phrase subject to , the latter conveying the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject. In South India Corporation v. Board of Revenue- 1963 (8) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT , while interpreting Articles 372 and 278 of the Constitution, this Court emphasised that the phrase notwithstanding anything in the Constitution is equivalent to stating inspite of the other articles of the Constitution or that the other articles shall not to be an impediment to the operation of that particular article. [JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.- 2016 (11) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] In Automobile Transport 1962 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT , also found the use of the non-obstante clause to be a defect in phraseology . His Lordship held that the non-obstante clause has no relevance to Article 303 even when the Article is mentioned alongwith the non-obstante clause. The importance of the non-obstante clause was then confined to Article 304(b) as is clear from the following paragraph of the judgment : 42. The non-obstante clause vis-a-vis Article 304(a) may have some relevance so far as Article 301 is concerned, for it enables the Legislature of a State to impose an impediment on the free movement of trade in spite of the freedom declared under Article 301. But it has no relevance to Article 303, which only prohibits the State Legislature from making a discriminatory law and it does not in any way prohibit the State Legislature from imposing a non-discriminatory tax permitted under Art. 304(a). But, with reference to Art. 304(b), the non-obstante clause has significance and meaning even in regard to Art. 303, as clause (b) lifts the ban imposed by Art. 303, subject to the limitation mentioned therein. Therefore, the non-obstante clause must be deemed to apply only to that part of Art. 304 appropriate to the said clause. If so read, the difficulty in the construction disappears. Art. 304(a) lifts the general ban imposed by Article 301 in respect of imposition of non-discriminatory taxes on goods imported, which indicates that but for the said provision the law of taxation in that regard would infringe the freedom declared under Art. 301. Hidayatullah, J. also found the non-obstante clause in Article 304 to be somewhat anomalous and described the same as inaccurate drafting of the Constitution .