Constitution of India
Article 389: Provision as to Bills pending in the Dominion Legislatures and in the Legislatures of Provinces and Indian States [OMITTED]
Part XXI — Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Article 389 (Single provision, no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAID: Bills pending in the Legislature of the Dominion of India, any Province, or any Indian State immediately before 26 January 1950 could be continued in Parliament or the corresponding new State Legislature. WHAT IT MEANT: 1. Legislative continuity was ensured during the constitutional transition. 2. Bills did not lapse merely because the old legislatures (Dominion/Provincial/State) were replaced by new ones under the Constitution. 3. The word 'Legislature' included the entire legislative process — i.e., Bills awaiting Governor/Governor-General assent were also 'pending' (as per Supreme Court in Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup case). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Legislative Continuity — pending legislative business of the old regime is saved and can be continued by the successor legislature under the new constitutional order.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 30, 32, 73, 75 & 76 Original provision: These sections dealt with introduction, passing, and assent of Bills in the Federal and Provincial Legislatures under British rule. What India kept: The principle that pending legislative business should not lapse during a constitutional transition. 2. India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947 — Section 30 (as substituted) Original provision: Provided that Bills pending before the Dominion Legislature would not lapse on prorogation and could continue. What India kept: Adapted this continuity mechanism to cover the transition from Dominion status to Republic. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Extended coverage to Indian States' Legislatures — Because princely states were integrating into the Union and their Bills also needed saving. 2. Made it subject to contrary rules by Parliament/State Legislature — Gave the new legislatures power to override continuity if desired. 3. Designed as expressly temporary — Unlike the GOI Act provisions which were permanent, Article 389 was placed in Part XXI (Transitional) and was later omitted.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: October 1949 (CAD Volume X) KEY CONTEXT: 1. Article 389 corresponded to Draft Article 325 in the Draft Constitution. 2. It was part of the package of transitional provisions (Articles 369–392) debated in October 1949. 3. The provision was considered relatively non-controversial — its purpose was mechanical continuity, not policy. KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved the article as part of the transitional provisions; explained the necessity of saving pending Bills from lapsing upon the commencement of the new Constitution. 2. K.M. Munshi (Bombay) — Supported the transitional provisions framework, explaining that administrative continuity was essential. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: No major disagreements were recorded on this specific provision. The need for legislative continuity during transition was broadly accepted. FINAL OUTCOME: The Draft Article was adopted without substantive amendment. The Assembly accepted the need for a transitional saving clause for pending Bills. NOTE: Detailed speaker-by-speaker records for this specific article are sparse in digitised CAD sources, as it was adopted alongside a batch of transitional provisions with minimal individual debate.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup v. State of Assam (AIR 1956 SC 503) — The Supreme Court held that a Bill awaiting Governor-General's assent was 'pending in the Legislature' within the meaning of Article 389, and could be validly continued in the Assam Legislature after the Constitution commenced. 2. Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup v. State of Assam (1956) — The Court ruled that the word 'Legislature' in Article 389 includes all units of the legislative process (Chambers + Governor/Governor-General), not just the legislative chamber alone. 3. Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup v. State of Assam (1956) — The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951, which originated from a Bill saved under Article 389. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None recorded in the above case. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Described Article 389 as a necessary transitional provision to ensure continuity of the legislative process during the transition from the Dominion to the Republic. 2. H.M. Seervai — Noted that Part XXI provisions like Article 389 were designed to bridge the gap between the old and new constitutional orders, preventing a legal vacuum.