Constitution of India
Article 375: Courts, authorities and officers to continue to function subject to the provisions of the Constitution
Part XXI — Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Article 375 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: All courts (civil, criminal, revenue), all authorities, and all officers (judicial, executive, ministerial) throughout India shall continue to exercise their respective functions, subject to the provisions of this Constitution. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Every pre-Constitution court, authority, and officer continued in office after 26 January 1950. 2. Their source of authority shifted — from colonial statutes/royal prerogative to the Constitution of India. 3. Continuity was in function only, NOT in autonomy — all actions became subject to constitutional limitations. 4. Parliament and State Legislatures retained full power to alter, amend, or replace any such institution. 5. This prevented any legal or administrative vacuum during the transition from colonial to constitutional governance. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Legal Continuity — existing institutions persist temporarily during regime change to prevent governance collapse, but operate under the new sovereign legal order.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (UK Parliament) — Transitional provisions ensured continuation of courts, officers, and administrative bodies when the Act came into force. Original provision: The 1935 Act contained transitional clauses ensuring existing courts and officers continued functioning under the new federal framework. What India kept: The principle that all pre-existing institutions continue but become subordinate to the new supreme law. 2. General Principle of Constitutional Transitions — Common across constitutions worldwide (e.g., US, Canada, South Africa, Australia) to prevent administrative vacuum. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Universal scope covering ALL courts, ALL authorities, ALL officers — because India had a complex mosaic of British Indian provinces, princely states, and diverse administrative setups that all needed to be brought under one constitutional umbrella. 2. Explicit subordination to the Constitution using the phrase 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution' — because the framers wanted to establish constitutional supremacy from day one, replacing colonial legislative supremacy and royal prerogative. 3. Coverage of revenue courts and ministerial officers alongside judicial and executive — because India's land revenue system and district-level bureaucracy were critical to governance continuity, especially in rural areas.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 October 1949 (CAD Volume X) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: 309 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved Draft Article 309 as part of the transitional provisions; no extensive debate was required as the provision was non-controversial. 2. Mr. President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) — Put Article 309 to vote, noting there was no amendment to it. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: None — The article was adopted without any amendments or opposition. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 309 was adopted unanimously on 7 October 1949 without any amendments; it became Article 375 in the final Constitution. NOTE: The article was considered a self-evident necessity for governance continuity and did not attract controversy in the Assembly.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: Note: There is no landmark Supreme Court judgment exclusively interpreting Article 375. However, its principle of continuity has been referenced in cases dealing with transitional provisions: 1. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) — Reaffirmed that pre-constitutional laws and institutions remain valid unless repealed or found inconsistent with the Constitution (related to Article 372, read with Article 375). 2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — Emphasized federalism and constitutional governance; the spirit of Article 375 ensuring institutional continuity resonated through the verdict. 3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — Reinforced the importance of uninterrupted institutional function, consistent with the continuity principle of Article 375. 4. Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) — Discussed functioning of tribunals and judicial independence; the logic of preserving existing institutions under new rules (Article 375's core idea) was relevant. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None specific to Article 375. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Sir B.N. Rau (Constitutional Adviser) — Drafted the transitional provisions including Draft Article 309, recognising the practical necessity of ensuring no governance vacuum during constitutional transition. 2. M.P. Jain (Constitutional Scholar) — Noted that Article 375, along with Articles 372-378, formed a comprehensive transitional framework balancing continuity with constitutional supremacy. AMENDMENT HISTORY: Article 375 has remained untouched by any constitutional amendment since its adoption in 1949. No amendment has been made, proposed, or necessitated.