Understanding the Non-Obstante Clause
Non-Obstante Clause – Meaning
The Non-Obstante Clause is a provision in the Indian Constitution that allows certain laws to override other provisions or fundamental rights.
Literally, “notwithstanding anything contained in…”
It provides legal immunity to a law from being challenged on grounds of inconsistency with certain other provisions of the Constitution.
Essentially, it allows Parliament or State Legislatures to legislate in a way that a particular law will prevail even if it conflicts with Fundamental Rights or other provisions.
Constitutional Basis
The Non-Obstante Clause appears in several Articles, for example:
Article 31C – Laws implementing Directive Principles:
“Notwithstanding anything in Articles 14, 19, or 31, if a law is made to give effect to certain Directive Principles, it cannot be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.”
Article 31D – Special powers to prevent anti-national activities.
Article 33 – Modification of Fundamental Rights for Armed Forces.
Article 31A/31B – Protecting laws under Ninth Schedule from judicial review.
Purpose:
To give supremacy to certain laws, especially those promoting Directive Principles or social justice, even if they conflict with Fundamental Rights.
Key Features
Override Mechanism:
Enables legislation to override conflicting provisions, especially Fundamental Rights.
Limited Scope:
Cannot be used arbitrarily; applies only to laws explicitly mentioned or protected by the clause.
Enables Social Justice:
Often used to protect land reform laws, affirmative action, or social welfare legislation.
Judicial Interpretation:
Courts can examine whether the law falls within the ambit of the Non-Obstante Clause and whether its use is reasonable and not arbitrary.
Important Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Supreme Court held that even laws with a Non-Obstante Clause are subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Parliament cannot use this clause to destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Reinforced that Non-Obstante Clause cannot violate the basic structure, balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Demonstrated that Non-Obstante Clause can protect certain laws temporarily, but cannot override democratic principles.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Laws added to the Ninth Schedule (protected by Non-Obstante Clause) after 1973 are subject to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
Significance
Protects Social Welfare Laws:
Non-Obstante Clause allows land reform, reservation, and other social justice laws to survive judicial scrutiny.
Balances Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
Ensures Directive Principles promoting social justice are implemented, even if they restrict certain Fundamental Rights.
Limits Judicial Overreach:
Gives legislature primacy in certain matters, but courts retain power to check arbitrariness.
Conclusion
The Non-Obstante Clause is a powerful constitutional tool that allows certain laws to prevail over conflicting provisions, particularly Fundamental Rights. However, its exercise cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution, as emphasized in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills. It ensures that laws aimed at promoting social justice, welfare, and equitable development can survive judicial scrutiny, while maintaining the constitutional balance between rights and duties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments