The Parliament

Consider the following statements:

• 1. The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks fit.
• 2. The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions.
• 3. There is no minimum number of days that the Parliament is required to meet in a year.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

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

Statement 1: Article 85(1) of the Constitution states that the President shall from time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit. This grants the President the power to decide the place of the parliamentary session. Thus, statement 1 is correct.
Statement 2: The Constitution does not mandate three sessions per year. Article 85(1) only requires that “six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.” This means Parliament must meet at least twice a year. While the practice is to hold three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, Winter), it is not constitutionally mandatory. Thus, statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3: The Constitution does not specify a minimum number of sitting days for Parliament in a year. The frequency of meetings is primarily determined by the executive’s need for legislative business and the constitutional requirement of not having more than a six-month gap between sessions. Thus, statement 3 is correct.

– The President summons Parliament sessions and determines the place.
– The Constitution mandates Parliament must meet at least twice a year (max 6 months between sessions).
– There is no minimum number of sitting days specified in the Constitution.

The typical three sessions are Budget (Feb-May), Monsoon (July-Sept), and Winter (Nov-Dec). The lack of a mandated minimum number of sitting days has sometimes been criticized as potentially limiting parliamentary scrutiny.

Regarding Money Bill, which of the following statements is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”A bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions relating to imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax.” option2=”A Money Bill has provisions for the custody of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Contingency Fund of India.” option3=”A Money Bill is concerned with the appropriation of moneys out of the Contingency Fund of India.” option4=”A Money Bill deals with the regulation of borrowing of money or giving of any guarantee by the Government of India.” correct=”option3″]

A Money Bill is defined in Article 110(1) of the Indian Constitution. It lists specific matters that, if contained *only* in a bill, make it a Money Bill. Statement C says a Money Bill is concerned with the appropriation of moneys out of the Contingency Fund of India. Article 110(1)(d) specifies appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India, not the Contingency Fund. The Contingency Fund is an emergency fund handled differently. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.

Statement A is correct as per Article 110(1)(a). Statement B is correct as per Article 110(1)(c). Statement D is correct as per Article 110(1)(b). A bill containing *only* provisions related to these matters is deemed a Money Bill.

Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha has limited powers regarding Money Bills; it can suggest amendments, but the Lok Sabha is not bound by these suggestions. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha’s decision on whether a bill is a Money Bill is final.

Consider the following statements:

• In the election for Lok Sabha or State Assembly, the winning candidate must get at least 50 percent of the votes polled, to be declared elected.
• According to the provisions laid down in the Constitution of India, in Lok Sabha, the Speaker’s post goes to the majority party and the Deputy Speaker’s to the Opposition.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

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

The correct answer is D) Neither 1 nor 2. Both statements are incorrect regarding the Indian parliamentary system.

– Statement 1 is incorrect. In India’s First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system, the winning candidate in a Lok Sabha or State Assembly election needs to secure more votes than any other candidate, not necessarily 50 percent or more of the total votes polled. They simply need a plurality of votes.
– Statement 2 is incorrect. The Constitution of India does not lay down provisions mandating that the Speaker’s post goes to the majority party and the Deputy Speaker’s to the Opposition. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker are elected by the members of the respective house (Lok Sabha or State Assembly). While there has been a convention in the Lok Sabha to offer the Deputy Speaker’s post to the opposition, this is a political convention, not a constitutional rule, and it has not always been followed.

The FPTP system is a simple majority system. The election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker is governed by rules of procedure of the legislature, not explicitly detailed distribution by the Constitution based on party lines. The convention of giving the Deputy Speaker post to the opposition is aimed at ensuring fairness and inclusivity in the functioning of the House.

The Parliament of India exercises control over the functions of the Council of Ministers through

• 1. Adjournment motion
• 2. Question hour
• 3. Supplementary questions

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

The correct answer is D) 1, 2 and 3.

The Parliament of India exercises control over the executive (Council of Ministers) through various mechanisms to ensure accountability. Adjournment motion, Question Hour, and Supplementary Questions are all effective tools used by Members of Parliament to scrutinize the functioning of the government and its ministers.

Adjournment motion is a motion moved in Parliament to adjourn the regular business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. It is an extraordinary device that, if admitted and passed, leads to a censure of the government. Question Hour is the first hour of every parliamentary sitting, where Members of Parliament ask questions to ministers, who are required to answer, making them accountable for their actions. Supplementary questions are follow-up questions asked by members immediately after the minister’s initial answer during the Question Hour or discussion, aimed at seeking further clarification or information. All these methods are part of parliamentary procedure to ensure executive accountability.

With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:

• 1. A private member’s bill is a bill presented by a Member of Parliament who is not elected but only nominated by the President of India.
• 2. Recently, a private member’s bill has been passed in the Parliament of India for the first time in its history.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

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

The correct option is D) Neither 1 nor 2.

– Statement 1 is incorrect. A private member’s bill is a bill introduced by any Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a Minister. This includes both elected and nominated MPs, but the defining characteristic is that they are not part of the executive (Council of Ministers).
– Statement 2 is incorrect. While it is true that passing a private member’s bill is rare, it is not unprecedented in the history of the Indian Parliament. Several private member bills have been passed by Parliament since independence, though none have been passed since 1970. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that one has been passed “for the first time in its history” recently.

Bills introduced by Ministers are called government bills. Government bills have a higher chance of being passed as they are backed by the government’s majority in Parliament. Private member bills can be introduced in either House of Parliament. Their admissibility is decided by the respective presiding officer (Speaker in Lok Sabha, Chairman in Rajya Sabha).

Which of the following statements is/are correct?

• 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.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

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

Only statement 2 is correct.

A Bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, but not on its prorogation. A Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha, which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha, does not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Statement 1 is incorrect because prorogation merely terminates a session of Parliament, and bills pending at the time of prorogation are carried over to the next session. Statement 2 is correct as per Article 107 of the Constitution, which governs the lapse of bills. Bills originating and pending only in Rajya Sabha, or passed by Rajya Sabha but pending in Lok Sabha, do not lapse upon dissolution of Lok Sabha. Only bills pending in Lok Sabha or passed by Lok Sabha and pending in Rajya Sabha lapse.

With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:

• 1. The Department of Revenue is responsible for the preparation of Union Budget that is presented to Parliament.
• 2. No amount can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India without the authorization from the Parliament of India.
• 3. All the disbursements made from Public Account also need the authorization from the Parliament of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

The correct option is C.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Union Budget is prepared by the Budget Division under the Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance, not the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue is mainly responsible for taxation policy and administration.
Statement 2 is correct. Article 266(1) of the Constitution establishes the Consolidated Fund of India. No money can be withdrawn from this fund except under appropriation made by law passed by Parliament. This ensures parliamentary control over government expenditure.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 266(2) deals with the Public Account of India, which holds funds like provident funds, small savings, etc., where the government acts as a banker. Disbursements from the Public Account do not require legislative authorization; they are made based on executive decisions and are repayable. Only transactions from the Consolidated Fund require parliamentary approval.

The Consolidated Fund of India is the main account where all revenues of the government are credited and major expenditures are debited. The Public Account is for funds where the government is merely a custodian. There is also a Contingency Fund (Article 267) for unforeseen expenditure, which is at the disposal of the President but needs subsequent parliamentary approval for replenishment.

When a bill is referred to a joint sitting of both the Houses of the Parliament, it has to be passed by

[amp_mcq option1=”a simple majority of members present and voting” option2=”three-fourths majority of members present and voting” option3=”two-thirds majority of the Houses” option4=”absolute majority of the Houses” correct=”option1″]

When a bill is referred to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), it is passed by a simple majority of members present and voting.

Article 108 of the Constitution of India provides for joint sittings of both Houses in certain disagreements over a bill. Article 118(4) states that at a joint sitting, the Speaker of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) shall preside, and the rules of procedure shall be made by the President after consultation with the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the Speaker of the House of the People. The key rule for passing a bill at a joint sitting is that it must be passed by a simple majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting. This means more than half of the members present and casting a vote must vote in favour of the bill.

Joint sittings are rare and are usually convened by the President when there is a deadlock between the two Houses on an ordinary bill (not a Money Bill or a Constitution Amendment Bill). Due to the Lok Sabha having more members than the Rajya Sabha, a simple majority in a joint sitting usually favours the Lok Sabha’s position.

Consider the following statements :

• The Rajya Sabha has no power either to reject or to amend a Money Bill.
• The Rajya Sabha cannot vote on the Demands for Grants.
• The Rajya Sabha cannot discuss the Annual Financial Statement.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

The correct option is C. This is based on the likely intended answer from past examinations where this question appeared. However, there is a factual inaccuracy in statement 3 according to standard constitutional understanding.

– Statement 1: The Rajya Sabha has no power either to reject or to amend a Money Bill. This is constitutionally accurate (Article 109(2)). Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.
– Statement 2: The Rajya Sabha cannot vote on the Demands for Grants. This is constitutionally accurate. Voting on Demands for Grants is the exclusive privilege of the Lok Sabha.
– Statement 3: The Rajya Sabha cannot discuss the Annual Financial Statement (Budget). This is constitutionally inaccurate. Rajya Sabha *does* discuss the Annual Financial Statement, though it cannot vote on the Demands for Grants or reject/amend the related Appropriation/Finance Bills in the same way as the Lok Sabha.

Based on constitutional facts, statements 1 and 2 are correct, and statement 3 is incorrect. The option “1 and 2 only” is missing from the choices. The provided option C (1 and 3 only) implies that statement 3 is correct, which contradicts constitutional provisions and parliamentary practice. If we are forced to choose from the given options, and assuming the question setter intended statement 3 to be interpreted in a specific way (e.g., cannot discuss in a manner leading to a vote or effective change, although the word “discuss” usually means debate) or there is an error, option C is the answer choice that aligns with some sources attributing this question to a past exam with answer key C.

Financial matters show a clear asymmetry of power between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, with Lok Sabha having predominant authority. Money Bills can only be introduced in Lok Sabha, and Rajya Sabha’s role is limited to making recommendations within 14 days. Demands for Grants are presented to Lok Sabha, and voting on them takes place only in Lok Sabha. The Annual Financial Statement is laid before both Houses, and both Houses have a general discussion on it.

Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India :

• 1. There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India.
• 2. A Motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

Statement 1 is correct: The term “No-Confidence Motion” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India. However, the principle underlying it is derived from Article 75(3), which stipulates the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The procedure for moving a No-Confidence Motion is laid down in Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha.
Statement 2 is correct: According to Article 75(3), the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Therefore, a No-Confidence Motion, which tests the confidence of the Lok Sabha in the Council of Ministers, can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha, not in the Rajya Sabha.

– The concept of No-Confidence Motion is based on the principle of collective responsibility of the executive to the legislature.
– In India, this principle is enshrined in Article 75(3) (responsibility to Lok Sabha).
– The procedure is detailed in the Lok Sabha’s Rules of Procedure, not directly in the Constitution.
– A No-Confidence Motion can only be moved in the Lok Sabha.

A No-Confidence Motion needs the support of at least 50 members to be admitted in the Lok Sabha. If admitted, it is debated, and if passed by a majority of the members present and voting, the Council of Ministers must resign. The Rajya Sabha can discuss government policies but cannot pass a No-Confidence Motion against the Council of Ministers.