A Bill in Parliament does not become law instantly. It moves through readings, committee stages, votes, and inter-House transmission. While it is pending, the Lok Sabha's five-year term may expire or the House may be dissolved early. What happens to the pending Bill? The answer depends on which House the Bill is in, whether it has been passed by the other House, and whether a joint session has been called. The 2016 Prelims tested precisely this set of rules — and the trap was the difference between prorogation (which does not cause Bills to lapse) and dissolution (which does, in specific cases). Hold the five rules carefully.
Prorogation vs dissolution — the foundational distinction
Parliament can be ended in two different senses, and the two have different consequences for pending Bills.
Adjournment — the postponement of a sitting of the House to a later date. Adjournment can be for hours, days, or weeks. It does not end the session. Bills pending before the House remain pending. There is no constitutional consequence on Bills.
Prorogation — the termination of a session of the House. Prorogation ends the session but does not dissolve the House. The same House continues; only the session ends. Bills pending before the House do not lapse on prorogation. They survive into the next session of the same House.
Dissolution — the termination of the House itself. After dissolution, the existing Lok Sabha ceases to exist. Fresh elections must be held. The new Lok Sabha is constitutionally a different body. Bills pending in the dissolved Lok Sabha generally lapse — though with specific exceptions discussed below. The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; it is a continuing chamber.
The 2016 Prelims trap turned on this distinction. Statement 1 of the question said "A Bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its prorogation." This is wrong — Bills do not lapse on prorogation. Bills lapse on dissolution. Aspirants who confuse the two lose the question.
The five rules — Articles 107(4), 107(5), and 108
The constitutional text governs in five rules.
Rule 1 — Article 107(4). A Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has NOT been passed by the Lok Sabha does NOT lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The Bill stays in the Rajya Sabha and can be taken up by the new Lok Sabha when it is constituted.
The rationale is that the Rajya Sabha is a continuing body. A Bill that has only been before the Rajya Sabha (for example, having originated there or having been transmitted by a previous Lok Sabha) is part of the Rajya Sabha's ongoing work. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha does not affect the Rajya Sabha's ability to deal with the Bill.
Rule 2 — Article 107(5), first part. A Bill pending in the Lok Sabha LAPSES on dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Whether the Bill originated in the Lok Sabha or was transmitted to it by the Rajya Sabha, if it is currently pending in the Lok Sabha at the time of dissolution, it lapses. The Bill must be reintroduced in the new Lok Sabha if Parliament wishes to consider it.
Rule 3 — Article 107(5), second part. A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha LAPSES on dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Even though the Bill is currently in the Rajya Sabha, the fact that it has been passed by the Lok Sabha (the dissolved House) means it lapses with that House.
Rule 4 — Exception under Article 108. If, before dissolution, the President had already notified an intention to summon a joint session of the two Houses to consider a Bill, the Bill does NOT lapse. The joint session can still be held even after dissolution, and the Bill can be passed in the joint session. This is the only case where a Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha survives dissolution.
Rule 5 — Bills passed by both Houses but pending Presidential assent. A Bill passed by both Houses but pending Presidential assent does NOT lapse on dissolution. The Bill stays before the President; the President can give or refuse assent. This was settled by the Supreme Court in Purushottam Nambudri v. State of Kerala (1962).
The 2016 Prelims — the test of the rules
The 2016 Prelims tested two of the rules with a classic trap.
- A Bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its prorogation.
- A Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha, which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha, shall not lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
The trap is statement 1. The aspirant who reads "lapses" and rushes thinks of dissolution rather than prorogation. But the question specifically says "prorogation" — and prorogation does not cause Bills to lapse. Reading the question text carefully reveals the trap.
Why these rules — the constitutional logic
The rules of lapsing reflect three structural features of the Indian parliamentary system.
One — the Rajya Sabha is a continuing body. Unlike the Lok Sabha, which has a fixed five-year term and is subject to dissolution, the Rajya Sabha never dissolves as a whole. One-third of its members retire every two years and are replaced by elections. The Rajya Sabha's institutional continuity means that Bills pending only before it do not depend on the Lok Sabha's existence. Hence Rule 1 — survival of Rajya Sabha-only Bills.
Two — the Lok Sabha's passage of a Bill is institutionally tied to that specific Lok Sabha. When the Lok Sabha passes a Bill, the political composition and intent of that Lok Sabha is reflected in the Bill. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the new Lok Sabha may have a different political composition. Asking the new Lok Sabha to inherit a Bill passed by its predecessor would be politically problematic. Hence Rule 3 — Bills passed by the Lok Sabha but not yet passed by the Rajya Sabha lapse with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha that passed them.
Three — Bills before the President are between Parliament and the executive. Once a Bill has been passed by both Houses, the parliamentary process is complete. The Bill is now in the executive sphere awaiting Presidential assent. The dissolution of the Lok Sabha does not affect the executive's relationship with the Bill. The President can still give or refuse assent. Hence Rule 5 — Bills awaiting assent do not lapse.
The joint-session exception (Rule 4) reflects the special status of the joint sitting mechanism. Once the President has formally notified a joint session, the deadlock-resolution process has begun. Allowing dissolution to terminate the process would defeat the purpose of the joint session mechanism. Hence the exception.
Related procedures — what does NOT lapse
Beyond the five rules on Bills, several related parliamentary processes are unaffected by dissolution.
Pending notices and motions, generally — lapse on prorogation. While Bills do not lapse on prorogation, most other parliamentary notices and motions do. Notices for questions, calling-attention motions, no-confidence motions, etc., generally lapse at the end of a session. The exception is notices for introducing Bills, which survive prorogation.
Removal of judges — does not lapse on dissolution. The Supreme Court held in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1992) that a motion for the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge does not lapse with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The motion is treated as a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968, not just a parliamentary motion. Once admitted by the Speaker, it survives dissolution.
Contempt proceedings — do not lapse on dissolution. The Privileges Committee held in 1977 that the new Lok Sabha can punish for contempt or breach of privilege of the previous Lok Sabha. The institutional continuity of Parliament — even though the specific Lok Sabha changes — means that contempts of an earlier Lok Sabha can be addressed by a later one. The famous example was the 1977 motion against Indira Gandhi for her conduct in the Fifth Lok Sabha, raised in the Sixth Lok Sabha.
Bills passed by both Houses awaiting Presidential consideration under Article 111's reconsideration provision — also survive. If the President has returned a Bill for reconsideration under Article 111's proviso, and the Lok Sabha is dissolved before reconsideration is complete, the position depends on the stage of the reconsideration. Generally, the Bill is treated as being before Parliament again, and the rules of lapsing apply.
Some practical examples
Specific examples illustrate the rules.
Lokpal Bill 2011 — passed by the Lok Sabha in December 2011 but referred to a Select Committee in the Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha was not dissolved before the Bill became law in 2013, so lapsing did not become an issue. But had the 15th Lok Sabha been dissolved earlier, the Bill (passed by Lok Sabha, pending in Rajya Sabha) would have lapsed under Rule 3 unless a joint session had been notified.
Womens Reservation Bill (predecessor to the 106th Amendment) — was first introduced in 1996 and went through multiple Lok Sabhas before becoming law as the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Each version pending in a particular Lok Sabha lapsed when that Lok Sabha was dissolved. The Bill had to be reintroduced in successive Lok Sabhas. Only the 2023 version, passed by both Houses and assented to, became law.
Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 2015 — passed by the Lok Sabha but referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. When the Committee's term expired and the Bill remained pending, the issue of its survival arose. The 16th Lok Sabha's dissolution in 2019 meant the Bill (insofar as it was pending in the Lok Sabha) lapsed. The government chose not to reintroduce it.
Joint sittings — only three joint sessions have been held in Indian parliamentary history: the Dowry Prohibition Bill 1961, the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill 1978, and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2002. None involved a dissolution-lapse issue. The joint-session exception under Rule 4 is therefore largely theoretical, but constitutionally important.
Comparison with other systems
The Indian system is closer to the British than to other parliamentary federations.
United Kingdom — Bills pending at the time of dissolution lapse. The new Parliament must reintroduce them. The principle is similar to India's, but the UK does not have an Upper House continuing-body issue (the House of Lords is, in a sense, also continuing). India's Article 107(4) protection for Rajya Sabha-only Bills is an Indian innovation.
United States — Bills pending at the end of a Congress (every two years) automatically die. They must be reintroduced in the next Congress. Both the Senate and the House are subject to this — there is no equivalent of India's Rajya Sabha continuity.
Australia — pending Bills generally lapse on dissolution, but the Australian Senate is also a continuing body for Bills, similar to India's Rajya Sabha. The 1958 amendment to the Australian Senate rules created some protection for Bills before that House.
Canada — Bills lapse on dissolution and must be reintroduced. The Canadian Senate, while not popularly elected, is also subject to this rule for legislative Bills.
India's system reflects two specifically Indian design choices: (i) the Rajya Sabha as a continuing chamber with its own institutional life, and (ii) the explicit constitutional codification of lapsing rules in Articles 107 and 108. Most other systems leave these rules to constitutional convention or parliamentary procedure.
What students must hold
Six points carry the weight. One, distinguish adjournment (no effect on Bills), prorogation (no Bill lapses), and dissolution (specific Bills lapse). The 2016 Prelims trap was confusing prorogation with dissolution.
Two, on Lok Sabha dissolution, the five rules: (i) Bill pending in Rajya Sabha not yet passed by Lok Sabha — does NOT lapse; (ii) Bill pending in Lok Sabha — lapses; (iii) Bill passed by Lok Sabha pending in Rajya Sabha — lapses; (iv) Exception: if joint session was notified before dissolution, the Bill does not lapse; (v) Bill passed by both Houses pending Presidential assent — does NOT lapse.
Three, the Rajya Sabha is a continuing chamber and is not subject to dissolution. Bills pending only in the Rajya Sabha survive Lok Sabha dissolution.
Four, motions for removal of judges (under Judges Inquiry Act 1968) and contempt proceedings do NOT lapse with Lok Sabha dissolution.
Five, joint sessions have happened only three times in Indian parliamentary history — Dowry Prohibition Bill 1961, Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill 1978, Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2002.
Six, the lapsing rules are constitutional (Articles 107 and 108), not statutory or procedural. They cannot be modified by ordinary legislation. For more, see joint sitting and Lok Sabha exclusive powers.