Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

Arun reads a section in a Central Act that begins with the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force' and conflicts with a provision in another Act that has no such clause. Applying the rules of interpretation, what is the correct position?

The section containing the non-obstante clause prevails over the conflicting provision to the extent of the inconsistency. Such a clause expresses the legislature's intention that the section should override other laws, so the conflicting provision in the other Act yields.

  1. AThe other Act always prevails because it is older
  2. BThe section with the non-obstante clause prevails over the conflicting provision to the extent of the inconsistency, as it signals the legislature's intention to override other lawsCorrect
  3. CBoth provisions are void because of the conflict
  4. DThe section with the non-obstante clause is ignored, since such a clause has no legal effect

Explanation

A non-obstante clause ('notwithstanding anything contained in any other law') shows that the legislature intends the section to override any conflicting provision elsewhere. The section prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. Age of the Act is not the test, and the conflict does not make either provision void.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions