Indian Polity and Governance Archives

51. In order that a motion may be admissible, it shall satisfy which one o

In order that a motion may be admissible, it shall satisfy which one of the following conditions?

[amp_mcq option1=”It shall not raise substantially one definite issue.” option2=”It shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements.” option3=”It shall refer to the conduct or character of persons.” option4=”It shall not be restricted to a matter of recent occurrence.” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

A motion, in order to be admissible, shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements. Parliamentary procedure requires motions to be concise, factual, and free from contentious or offensive language.

Rules governing the admissibility and form of motions (and notices) in Parliament aim to maintain decorum and focus debate. Standard parliamentary practice and rules (e.g., Rule 334 of Lok Sabha Rules) prohibit the inclusion of subjective elements like arguments, inferences, or personal attacks in the text of a motion.

Let’s examine the other options: A motion is generally required to raise substantially *one definite issue* (contrary to option A). Motions should typically *not* refer to the conduct or character of persons unless it is a substantive motion for a specific purpose like removal (contrary to option C). While motions can address historical issues, many important parliamentary devices like calling attention, adjournment motions, and short duration discussions are specifically intended for matters of *recent occurrence* or urgent public importance (contrary to option D). Thus, option B states a correct condition for the admissibility of a motion.

52. A petition, dealing with any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (

A petition, dealing with any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution of India or involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India, shall not be presented to the House unless recommended by

[amp_mcq option1=”the Prime Minister” option2=”the Vice President” option3=”the President” option4=”the Finance Minister” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

A petition dealing with any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution (defining Money Bills) or involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India requires the recommendation of the President before it can be presented to the House.

This rule aligns with the constitutional requirement for the President’s recommendation for introducing financial legislation (Article 117). While a petition is not a Bill, if it touches upon subjects that would require Presidential recommendation if they were part of a Bill, the same principle applies to ensure that such matters are brought before the House with executive approval. Rule 160(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha explicitly states this requirement.

Article 110(1)(a) to (f) covers matters like the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; the regulation of borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India; the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund, etc. Petitions related to these subjects, or those involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, are considered financially sensitive and hence require the President’s recommendation for formal presentation to the House.

53. If the Bill is returned to the House with a message that the Council i

If the Bill is returned to the House with a message that the Council insists on an amendment or amendments to which the House has disagreed, the Houses shall be

[amp_mcq option1=”deemed to have finally disagreed as to the amendment or amendments.” option2=”insisted to vote for majority” option3=”recommended for Select Committee” option4=”recommended for legal opinion” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

If the Rajya Sabha (Council) insists on amendments to which the Lok Sabha (House) has disagreed and returns the Bill with this message, the Houses are deemed to have finally disagreed as to the amendment or amendments.

Article 108(1) of the Constitution outlines the situations where a disagreement between the two Houses on a Bill is deemed to have arisen, potentially leading to a joint sitting. One such situation is when “the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill”. The scenario described in the question precisely fits this definition of disagreement.

When a Bill passed by one House is amended by the other, the Bill as amended is returned to the first House. If the first House disagrees with the amendments, it may return the Bill to the second House with a message stating its disagreement. If the second House insists on its amendments despite the disagreement, this constitutes a final disagreement between the Houses, triggering the possibility of a joint sitting convened by the President.

54. If any member desires to move an amendment to a Bill, no previous sanc

If any member desires to move an amendment to a Bill, no previous sanction or recommendation of the President shall be required, if an amendment seeks to

[amp_mcq option1=”abolish or reduce the limits of the tax proposed in the bill or amendment” option2=”decrease such tax up to the limits of an existing tax” option3=”increase such tax up to the limits of a proposed tax” option4=”decrease such tax up to the limits of a proposed tax” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

An amendment seeking to abolish or reduce the limits of a tax proposed in a bill or amendment does not require the previous sanction or recommendation of the President. This is a specific exception to the general rule that amendments dealing with financial matters may require Presidential recommendation.

Article 117 of the Constitution of India deals with Financial Bills and requires the recommendation of the President for certain types of financial legislation. However, Rule 85(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha specifically exempts amendments that seek to abolish or reduce a proposed tax from requiring the President’s recommendation.

The rationale behind this exception is that abolishing or reducing a proposed tax reduces the burden on the exchequer or the public, which is generally viewed favourably and does not increase the financial commitment of the government. Amendments that increase taxation or involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund typically require Presidential recommendation to ensure governmental control over financial proposals.

55. Consider the following statements: After the presentation of the final

Consider the following statements: After the presentation of the final report of a Select Committee of the House or a Joint Committee of the House, as the case may be, on a Bill, the member in charge may move that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee of the House or the Joint Committee of the Houses, as the case may be, be re-committed to the same Select Committee or to a new Select Committee, or to the same Joint Committee or to a new Joint Committee with the concurrence of the Council,

1. with limitation.
2. with respect to particular clauses or amendments only.
3. without instructions to the Committee to make some particular or additional provision in the Bill.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”1 and 2 only” option4=”1 and 3 only” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect. The rules of procedure allow for a Bill reported by a Select Committee or Joint Committee to be re-committed with limitation, or with respect to particular clauses or amendments only. It can also be re-committed without limitation, or with instructions to the Committee to make some particular or additional provision. Statement 3 suggests it should be re-committed *without* instructions, which is the opposite of one of the explicit options (with instructions).

Rule 128(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha outlines the conditions under which a Bill can be re-committed after being reported by a Select or Joint Committee. These include re-committal (a) without limitation, (b) with limitation, (c) with respect to particular clauses or amendments only, or (d) with instructions to the Committee.

Re-committal is a procedural step where a Bill is sent back to the committee that previously examined it, or to a new committee, for further consideration. This happens after the committee has presented its report but before the House proceeds to the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. The decision to re-commit and the specific conditions for re-committal are determined by a motion moved in the House.

56. Consider the following statements regarding the Speaker to decide admi

Consider the following statements regarding the Speaker to decide admissibility of the questions under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the House of the People :

1. The Speaker shall decide whether a question, or a part thereof, is or is not admissible under these rules and may disallow any question, or a part thereof, when in the opinion of the Speaker, it is an abuse of the right of questioning or is calculated to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure of the House or is in contravention of these rules.
2. Subject to the provisions of Rule 38, the Speaker may direct that a question be placed on the list of questions for answer on a date later than that specified by a member in the notice if the Speaker is of the opinion that a longer period is necessary to decide whether the question is or is not admissible.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

Statement 1 is correct. Rule 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha states: “The Speaker shall decide whether a question, or a part thereof, is or is not admissible under these rules and may disallow any question, or a part thereof, when in the opinion of the Speaker it is an abuse of the right of questioning or is calculated to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure of the House or is in contravention of these rules.”
Statement 2 is correct. Rule 35(2) states: “Subject to the provisions of rule 38, the Speaker may direct that a question be placed on the list of questions for answer on a date later than that specified by a member in the notice if the Speaker is of the opinion that a longer period is necessary to decide whether the question is or is not admissible.” Rule 38 deals with the list of questions.

The Speaker has the ultimate authority to decide the admissibility of questions in the House, ensuring that questions adhere to the rules and serve the purpose of seeking information from the government, without being abusive or obstructing proceedings.

57. Notice of an adjournment motion shall be given by 10.00 hours on the d

Notice of an adjournment motion shall be given by 10.00 hours on the day on which the motion is proposed to be made to the Secretary-General and copies thereof shall be endorsed among others, to

[amp_mcq option1=”the President of India” option2=”the Prime Minister” option3=”the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs” option4=”the Vice President of India” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

According to the established practice and procedure in Lok Sabha regarding Adjournment Motions (governed by Rules 56-62), the notice of an adjournment motion must be given to the Secretary-General by 10:00 hours on the day it is proposed to be moved. Copies of this notice are also required to be endorsed to the Speaker, the Minister concerned with the subject matter of the motion, and the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is the liaison between the government and Parliament regarding the scheduling and transaction of government business, making them a necessary recipient of such notices.

An adjournment motion is an extraordinary procedure which, if admitted, leads to an adjournment of the normal business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. Due to its disruptive nature to the normal schedule, strict rules govern its admissibility and notice requirements. Notice is given to key parliamentary functionaries and government representatives.

58. Consider the following statements regarding the limit of number of sta

Consider the following statements regarding the limit of number of starred questions in the House of the People :

1. Not more than one question distinguished by an asterisk by the same member and not more than twenty questions in all shall be placed on the list of questions for oral answer on any one day.
2. When a question is postponed or transferred from one list of questions for oral answer to another, more than one question may stand in the name of one member and the total number of questions may exceed by such postponed or transferred question.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

Statement 1 is correct. Rule 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha states: “Not more than one question distinguished by an asterisk by the same member and not more than twenty questions in all shall be placed on the list of questions for oral answer on any one day.”
Statement 2 is correct. Rule 33(2) states: “Where a question is postponed or transferred from one list of questions for oral answer to another, the question so postponed or transferred shall not be included in the quota referred to in sub-rule (1), but shall be in addition to the number of questions referred to in that sub-rule.” This means the total number of starred questions on a given day’s list can exceed twenty if postponed/transferred questions are added. It also implies a member might have more than one starred question on the list if one is a postponed/transferred question, notwithstanding the daily limit of one *original* starred question per member.

Starred questions are those for which a member desires an oral answer in the House. They are distinguished by an asterisk. Supplementary questions can be asked after the answer is given. There are limits placed on the number of starred questions per member and per day to manage the time available for the Question Hour effectively.

59. Consider the following statements : In the House of the People, the la

Consider the following statements :
In the House of the People, the last two and a half hours of a sitting on Friday shall be allotted for the transaction of private members’ business :

1. Provided that the Speaker may allot different Fridays for the disposal of different classes of such business and on Fridays so allotted for any particular class of business, business of that class shall have precedence.
2. Provided further that the Speaker may, in consultation with the Leader of the House, allot any day other than a Friday for the transaction of private members’ business.
3. Provided further that if there is no sitting of the House on a Friday, the Speaker may direct that two and a half hours on any other day in the week may be allotted for private members’ business.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 and 2 only” option2=”2 and 3 only” option3=”1 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha governs Private Members’ Business.
Statement 1 is incorrect. Rule 26(1) Proviso states: “Provided that the Speaker may, *in consultation with the Leader of the House*, allot different Fridays for the disposal of different classes of such business and on Fridays so allotted for any particular class of business, business of that class shall have precedence.” Statement 1 omits the requirement of consultation with the Leader of the House, which is a condition for the Speaker exercising this power.
Statement 2 is correct. Rule 26(2) states: “The Speaker may, in consultation with the Leader of the House, allot any day other than a Friday for the transaction of private members’ business…”
Statement 3 is correct. Rule 26(3) states: “Provided further that if there is no sitting of the House on a Friday, the Speaker may direct that two and a half hours on any other day in the week may be allotted for private members’ business.”

Private members’ business includes Bills and Resolutions introduced by members who are not Ministers. In Lok Sabha, this business is normally transacted on the last two and a half hours of a sitting on Friday. The rules allow flexibility in timing and prioritisation under certain conditions, often requiring consultation with the Leader of the House.

60. The Speaker of the House may allot time for the discussion of the matt

The Speaker of the House may allot time for the discussion of the matters referred to in the President’s address under which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 82(1)” option2=”Article 84(1)” option3=”Article 86(1)” option4=”Article 88(1)” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

The President’s Address to Parliament is a constitutional requirement under Article 86 and Article 87. Article 86(1) gives the President the right to address either House of Parliament or both Houses assembled together. Article 87(1) mandates a special address by the President at the commencement of the first session after each general election and the first session of each year. The discussion on the matters referred to in the President’s Address is a significant parliamentary business. While the Speaker’s power to allot time for this discussion is governed by the Rules of Procedure of the House (e.g., Rule 16 in Lok Sabha, framed under Article 118), these rules operationalize the constitutional provisions relating to the President’s Address. Among the given options, Article 86(1) is the constitutional provision directly related to the President’s right to address Parliament, which forms the basis for the subsequent discussion for which the Speaker allots time. The other articles are irrelevant to this context.

The discussion on the President’s Address takes place on a Motion of Thanks moved by a member and seconded by another. Amendments can be moved to the Motion of Thanks. The Prime Minister usually replies to the debate on the Motion of Thanks. The discussion is a crucial opportunity for members to debate government policies and programmes outlined in the Address.