NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE

Introduction- Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the

law.Usually, the interpretation of the statute is done by the judges, it is the primary
function of the judge as a judicial head. As we all know that our government is
divided into three important wings which are: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Here the legislature lays down the law and the judiciary, that is judges will come up
with the proper meaning of the law and put the law into operation. This helps in
maintaining checks and balances between the wings.

AIDS TO INTERPRETATION
Aid means ‘to help’ or ‘to assist’. These are the devices that help in our task(s). So,
whenever there is a dispute or conflict regarding understanding any provision or
statute, the judiciary seeks help from various aids. These are the devices that help to
understand the true meaning of the statute.

INTERNAL AID
Internal aids to interpretation are those devices that are present within the statute.
No external references are required to interpret the meaning. Various in-texts (within
the statute) are sufficient to interpret it. A non-obstante clause is one of the internal
aids to construction.

[ TYPES OF INTERNAL AIDS FLOW CHART ]

Meaning of Non Obstante Clause

The word non-obstante comes from Latin and it means notwithstanding or despite a
law. When we see the words “notwithstanding anythіng contaіned іn thіs Act” or
“notwithstanding anything contained in some particular Act” or “notwithstanding
anythіng contaіned іn some partіcular provіsіon іn the Act”, we can call such a clause
as a non-obstante clause.
This is always inserted at the beginning of a provision with the objective of giving the
provision an overriding effect over the statute or provision mentioned in the
non-obstante clause. That means this clause empowers the legislation or a provision
in which it contains, to override the effects of any other legal provisions.

How to interpret a non-obstante clause

It is the opposite of the phrase “subject to” that we see commonly in statutes. When
the words ``subject to” are used, it means that the provision yields to another
provision that is mentioned in the clause. This was affirmed in the decision of T.R.
Tandur v. Unіon of Іndіa .

However, In the case of І.T.O. v. Gwalіor Rayon Sіlk Manufacturіng (Weavіng)

Co. Ltd., it was viewed that while interpreting a section with a non-obstante clause,
the court should also find the extent to which the legislature intended to give the
overriding effect.

In cases where two or more provisions applied to the same area contain
non-obstante clauses, there arises confusion as to which provision will prevail over
the others. In such instances, the court must look into the object and purpose of all
the laws involved. The court must apply the rule of harmonious construction while
interpreting the conflicting laws. This view was taken in the case of Shri Swaran
Singh and Anr. v. Shri Kasturi Lal.

Examples of non-obstante clauses

● Non-obstante clauses in the Indian Constitution

There are several provisions in the Indian Constitution that carry non-obstante
clauses. The following are some of such provisions:

● Articles 5 to 11 of the Indian Constitution deals with the right of citizenship.

Article 5 entitles the right of citizenship to anyone born or born to parents who
were born in India, or anyone staying in India for more than five years. Article
6 deals with the citizenship of persons who have migrated from Pakistan to
India. The Article begins with the words “rights of citizenship of certain
persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan Notwithstanding anything
in Article 5” before we see its enacting part. It essentially means that the
provision in Article 6 prevails over the provision in Article 5 for those who have
migrated from Pakistan to India. The same can be seen in Article 7 which
states “notwithstanding anything in Article 5 and 6”.

● Article 34 of the Indian Constitution deals with the restriction of Fundamental

Rights when martial law is imposed. It uses the words “notwithstanding
anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part” to indicate that the provision
 in Article 34 will prevail over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
preceding provisions in situations where martial law has been imposed.

Case laws with respect to non-obstante clause

In the cases of RS Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and Dominion of Іndіa v.

Shrіnbaі Rani, the Court held that when the words ``notwithstanding anything
contained in the Constitution '' has been added to a provision by a constitutional
amendment, the provision must still be interpreted harmoniously with the basic
features of the Constitution.

In the case of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020),

the Court held that a general law cannot override a special law that is already
existing even if the general rule has a non-obstante clause attached to it.

The case of Kanwar Raj v. Pramod (1956) dealt with Section 12 of the
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This Section contains the words
“notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force the
Custodian may terminate any lease, etc.”. In this case, the custodian of an evacuee
Property cancelled a lease granted by him, under Section 12 of the Administration of
Evacuee Property Act. It was argued that the power of the custodian to cancel
leases could be exercised only in a manner that it overrides a restriction imposed by
any other law in force, but not the terms in the contract under which the lease is
granted. It was held that this power of the custodian was absolute and unqualified.

We can find a non-obstante clause in Section 32A of the Narcotіcs Drugs and
Psychotropіc Substances Act, 1958 as well.

Conclusion
To conclude, we can say that non-obstante clauses are one of the internal aids
present for interpreting a statute which helps with interpreting two or more laws
associated in regards to the same field which appears to be conflicting. It is used by
the legislature to give an overriding effect to a new provision that could potentially
clash with another law.
EJUSDEM GENERIS

Introduction
What is Interpretation
What is Statute
What is meant by Interpretation of statutes

BASIC PRINCIPLES OR RULES OF INTERPRETATION

FLOW CHART ………. SAME AS UNIT 1

Meaning of Ejusdem Generis

‘Ejusdem Generis’ is a Latin term and the meaning of it is “of the same kind and
nature”.

Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is also called Lord Tenterden’s Rule, which is an

ancient doctrine. The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis provides that when a list of
specific words are being followed by the general words, the general words are
interpreted in a way so as to include the items or things which will be of the same
type as those of the specific words.

For example if a law makes reference to cars, trucks, tractors, bikes and other
motor-powered vehicles, then the general word which is ‘other motor powered
vehicles’ will not include any planes or ships because the specific words preceding
are of the kind of land transports and when doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied
then that general word will be restricted to includes the things of same category as
that of the specific words.

Need for the doctrine of ejusdem generis

The need for interpretation of statute by the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis arises
when-

● There is ambiguity in the language of the provisions of statutes, or

● When in the provision, there is a possibility of two views, or
● The meaning which the provision of a statute gives, defeats the purpose of
the statute.
● There is no need for the interpretation if in the language there is no ambiguity
and it is clear.

Origin of Ejusdem generis from noscitur a sociis

The principle of ejusdem generis is a part of a wider principle – noscitur a sociis
which is a principle used in the interpretation of statutes. According to Maxwell, this
means that when two or more words have a similar meaning and can be put in the
same category, they are understood in a correlated sense.
This maxim says that a statutory phrase is recognized by the words that surround it.
This can clearly be understood by the word ‘sociis’ which means ‘society.’ Thus,
when general terms are used with specific terms, they cannot be read in isolation
and derive their colour from the context.

EJUSDEM GENERIS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Ejusdem Generis is often used in interpreting the Indian Constitution. Some
examples are -

● Article 12
● Article 31 A

We can clearly see in both these articles that specific words are used before the
general word and that helps in interpreting the meaning of general words.
In article 12, the word 'other authorities' was in question and in Article 31 A, the term
estate was in question.
Both were interpreted with the help of doctrine of ejusdem generis.

Limitations for the application of doctrine of ejusdem generis

The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis cannot be applied in the following conditions:

● If the general words are there before the specified words then this doctrine
cannot be applied. Therefore it is necessary that specific words must be
followed by the general words.

● If the specific words in the provision of the statute which have been followed
by the general words do not form a distinct genus/class then this rule cannot
be applied.

● Also the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be applied if the general word
follows only one word as that one word cannot form a distinct class/genus.

Cases explaining doctrine of ejusdem generis

In the case of Evans v. Cross, the Court had applied the ejusdem generis rule. The
issue was in relation to the interpretation of the word “other devices”. It was under
the definition of “traffic signals” under Section 48(9) Road Traffic Act, 1930, to
include “all signals, warning sign posts, signs, or other devices”. The Court held that
a painted line on a road cannot be included in the “other devices” as a traffic sign
because devices are here indicating a thing, whereas a painted line on a road is not
a thing.

The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Harishankar,,

has laid down the following five essential elements of Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis:
(1) the statute contains a number of specific words;
(2) those specific words constitute a class or category;
(3) that class or category is not exhausted.;
(4) the general terms follow those specific words
(5) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union Of India

Here in this case the question was regarding the interpretation of the general phrase
“any other beverages containing fruit juices or fruit pulp”. This was in the Fruit
Products Order, 1955, which was passed under the section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. Through the order the obligation was made that in fruit
syrup, peonage of fruit juice should be 25. The contention made by the petitioner
was that, to its product which is Rooh Afza, the order will not be applied because the
order provided “squashes, crushes, cordials, barley water, barreled juice and
ready-to-serve beverages or any other beverages containing fruit juices or fruit pulp”.
Further by applying the ejusdem generis, the general phrase will be restricted to the
specified words.

This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court and concluded that the ejusdem
generis rule will not apply here because the things mentioned before the general
phrase does not constitute a distinct genus. Further it is clear from the context that
there was an intention that all other beverages which contain fruit juice should also
be included.

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, a very landmark judgement in

Article 12 of Indian Constitution is also an example of ejusdem generis. We all know
that how in this case, the term 'other authorities' was interpreted keeping in mind the
specific words given in the article.

Conclusion
To conclude, we can say that Ejusdem generis is used by the Judges so as to clear
the ambiguity in the provisions of a statute and further make it clear by knowing the
intention of the legislature and thus properly fulfilling the purpose of the legislation.