The Parliament

1. A member wishing to give notice of a resolution, under Clause (c) of A

A member wishing to give notice of a resolution, under Clause (c) of Article 94 of the Constitution, for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall do so in writing to

Subscribe on YouTube
the Secretary-General
the Prime Minister
the Vice President
the President
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
A member wishing to give notice of a resolution for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, under Clause (c) of Article 94 of the Constitution, shall do so in writing to the Secretary-General of the House.
The procedure for initiating a resolution for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is specified in the Rules of Procedure. Rule 200(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha clearly states that the written notice of such a resolution must be given to the Secretary-General. Article 94(c) requires a minimum of fourteen days’ notice.
The Secretary-General is the administrative head of the Secretariat of the House and acts as the principal advisor to the Speaker regarding the business and procedures of the House. Notices for important matters, including resolutions and questions, are typically submitted to the Secretary-General.

Join Our Telegram Channel

2. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers may

A motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers may be made subject to which one of the following restrictions?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Leave to make the motion shall be asked for by the member when called by the Speaker.
Leave to make the motion shall not be asked for by the member when called by the Speaker.
Leave to make the motion shall be asked for by the concerned Minister when called by the Speaker.
Leave to make the motion shall not be asked for by the concerned Minister when called by the Speaker.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
A motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers may be made subject to the restriction that leave to make the motion shall be asked for by the member when called by the Speaker.
Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha lays down the procedure for a motion of no-confidence. One of the primary restrictions is that the member who intends to move the motion must first seek leave from the House. This is done by the member, having given prior written notice, rising in their place when called by the Speaker and asking for leave. If at least 50 members rise in support, leave is granted.
A motion of no-confidence is a crucial tool in parliamentary democracy to ensure the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)). The procedure ensures that such a motion is not frivolous and has significant backing within the House before time is allotted for its discussion.

Subscribe on YouTube

3. If the Speaker is satisfied, after calling for such information from t

If the Speaker is satisfied, after calling for such information from the member who has given notice and from the Minister as the Speaker may consider necessary, that the matter is urgent and is of sufficient importance to be raised in the House at an early date, the Speaker may admit the notice provided that

Subscribe on YouTube
if an early opportunity is otherwise available for the discussion of the matter the Speaker may admit the notice.
if an early opportunity is otherwise available for the discussion of the matter the Speaker may refuse to admit the notice.
allow such time for discussion not exceeding four hours at or before the end of the sitting.
allow such time for discussion not exceeding three hours at or before the end of the sitting.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Speaker may admit a notice for raising an urgent and important matter provided that an early opportunity is not otherwise available for the discussion of the matter. If an early opportunity is available, the Speaker may refuse to admit a separate notice for this purpose.
This rule (specifically Rule 194(1) relating to Short Duration Discussions in Lok Sabha, but the principle applies generally to admitting notices on urgent matters) ensures that the limited time of the House is used efficiently. If a matter of urgent public importance can be discussed through already scheduled business (like a Bill debate, a general discussion, or another motion), a separate notice for discussion on the same topic may be disallowed.
The process described allows members to bring important matters before the House quickly. The Speaker’s role is crucial in determining the urgency and importance and ensuring that the procedural means adopted (like a Short Duration Discussion) are appropriate and necessary given the existing parliamentary schedule.

Join Our Telegram Channel

4. 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?

Join Our Telegram Channel
It shall not raise substantially one definite issue.
It shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements.
It shall refer to the conduct or character of persons.
It shall not be restricted to a matter of recent occurrence.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

5. 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

Subscribe on YouTube
the Prime Minister
the Vice President
the President
the Finance Minister
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel

6. 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

Subscribe on YouTube
deemed to have finally disagreed as to the amendment or amendments.
insisted to vote for majority
recommended for Select Committee
recommended for legal opinion
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel

7. 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

Join Our Telegram Channel
abolish or reduce the limits of the tax proposed in the bill or amendment
decrease such tax up to the limits of an existing tax
increase such tax up to the limits of a proposed tax
decrease such tax up to the limits of a proposed tax
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

8. 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,

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 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 ?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
2 only
1 and 2 only
1 and 3 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

9. 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 :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 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 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

10. 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

Subscribe on YouTube
the President of India
the Prime Minister
the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs
the Vice President of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5