Constitution of India
Article 364: Special provisions as to major ports and aerodromes
Part XIX — Miscellaneous
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The President may, by public notification, direct that any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature shall NOT apply to any major port or aerodrome. 2. Alternatively, such law shall apply subject to exceptions or modifications specified in the notification. 3. The President may also direct that any existing law shall cease to have effect in any major port or aerodrome. 4. Existing laws may continue to apply subject to exceptions or modifications specified by the President. 5. Prior actions under existing laws before the notification date remain protected. 6. Opens with a NON OBSTANTE clause — 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution'. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Gives the President overriding executive power to tailor law-application within major ports and aerodromes. 2. Neither Parliament nor State Legislatures can block this presidential power through ordinary legislation. 3. Enables swift regulatory adjustments without fresh legislative action. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Non Obstante Clause — this provision overrides all other constitutional provisions regarding law-applicability in these zones. 2. Delegated Legislative Power — President exercises a quasi-legislative function through executive notification.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Defines 'major port' — a port declared major by or under any law made by Parliament or any existing law, including all areas within port limits. 2. Defines 'aerodrome' — as defined under enactments relating to airways, aircraft, and air navigation. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The Constitution does not itself define these terms — it relies on statutory definitions. 2. 'Major port' draws its meaning from the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 (which replaced the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963). 3. 'Aerodrome' draws its meaning from the Aircraft Act, 1934, and related air navigation legislation. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Statutory Cross-Reference Doctrine — constitutional terms defined by reference to parliamentary legislation, ensuring flexibility as statutory definitions evolve.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (British) — Seventh Schedule, Federal List Entry 24 (Aircraft and air navigation; provision of aerodromes) and Entry 27 (Ports declared major by Federal law). Original provision: The 1935 Act placed ports and aerodromes under federal legislative jurisdiction, ensuring central control over these strategic facilities. What India kept: India retained central legislative jurisdiction over major ports (Union List Entry 27) and aerodromes (Union List Entry 29) and added Article 364 for executive flexibility. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Presidential notification power — The 1935 Act did not grant the Governor-General an equivalent executive override; India's framers created a new presidential power for quick regulatory adjustments. 2. Non obstante clause — India made this power override all other constitutional provisions, giving it supremacy even over fundamental rights in these zones. 3. Coverage of State laws — The 1935 Act's federal structure did not need to address provincial law interference in ports; India's Article 364 was needed because State legislatures could legislate on subjects in List II/III affecting port/aerodrome areas. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Article 364 is largely an original Indian constitutional innovation. The framers felt it was necessary because post-independence India's federal structure gave States significant legislative power, yet ports and aerodromes needed uniform central governance for defence, international trade, and aviation safety.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 17 October 1949 (CAD Volume X) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Drafting Committee Member (moved Amendment No. 450) — Introduced Draft Article 302AAA, explaining that ports and aerodromes are special public spaces receiving international passengers with unique security requirements. 2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Corrected objections by clarifying that the Union legislature had only limited powers over ports/aerodromes; remaining legislative competence lay with State legislatures where the facility was located. 3. An unnamed Member — Argued the provision was unnecessary since Parliament alone had power to make laws for ports and aerodromes under the Draft Constitution. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Necessity of Presidential power — One Member argued Parliament's exclusive legislative power over ports and aerodromes made presidential override redundant. Ambedkar rejected this, noting State legislatures retained significant legislative authority over areas where ports/aerodromes stood. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 302AAA was adopted without further discussion on 17 October 1949, with minimal opposition. NOTE: This article was absent from the original Draft Constitution of 1948; it was introduced as a last-stage amendment by the Drafting Committee during the Second Reading.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: As of 2025, there are no major Supreme Court judgments directly interpreting Article 364. This absence reflects the limited scope of its application and the executive's careful use of the power conferred under it. RELATED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Non obstante clauses have been upheld by the Supreme Court as having overriding effect over inconsistent constitutional and legal provisions — a principle applicable to Article 364. 2. The doctrine that Presidential discretion under delegated powers must be exercised in public interest and must be legally justifiable applies to directions under Article 364. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 364 is a unique provision granting quasi-legislative power to the President to ensure efficient administration of strategic infrastructure without legislative delay. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that Article 364 exemplifies the Constitution's centralizing tendency for national strategic assets, balancing federalism with operational necessity.