The Parliament

31. Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the ef

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the effect of dissolution of Lok Sabha ?
1. Supplementary Demands for grants do not lapse.
2. A motion given in pursuance of Section 3(1) of Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for presenting an address to the President praying for removal of a Judge, if admitted, will not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3. Anything said or done during the existence of a House, can be raised as a privilege issue after that House has been dissolved.
Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Join Our Telegram Channel
1,2and 3
1 and 2 only
2 only
1 and 3 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect. Supplementary Demands for Grants are items of financial business pending before the Lok Sabha. As with most pending business, they lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The new Lok Sabha will need to deal with financial matters, possibly through a vote on account or fresh demands.
Statement 2 is correct. Matters relating to impeachment or removal of constitutional functionaries (like Judges) are typically considered proceedings of a quasi-judicial nature and are treated as not lapsing upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. A motion for presenting an address for the removal of a Judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once admitted, falls into this category.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Privilege issues relate to contempt or obstruction of the House or its members in their capacity as members. Once the House is dissolved, it ceases to exist, and its privileges cannot be violated or asserted in the same manner. While contempt of the *previous* House might be investigated by the *new* House, actions or statements purely related to the proceedings *within* the dissolved House or impacting members *of that dissolved House* during its tenure generally cannot be raised as a fresh privilege issue after dissolution. Parliamentary privilege is primarily the privilege of the House in existence.
While most pending business lapses upon dissolution of Lok Sabha, certain matters of a constitutional or quasi-judicial nature, like proceedings for the removal of a Judge, are exceptions and do not lapse. Privilege issues are generally related to the House in existence.
The principle is that dissolution wipes the slate clean for the Lok Sabha regarding its legislative and most deliberative functions. However, processes initiated under specific constitutional provisions or statutes that have a character beyond ordinary legislative business may survive dissolution.

Subscribe on YouTube

32. Which one of the following statements is correct?

Which one of the following statements is correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
A Bill can be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses notwithstanding the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
A Bill cannot be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses after Lok Sabha is dissolved.
Joint session cannot be convened by the President after dissolution of Lok Sabha even though the President notified his intention to summon the Joint Sitting of the Houses.
There is express provision in the Constitution regarding the effect of dissolution on a Bill which has been passed by the two Houses and sent to the President for assent.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement A is incorrect. A Bill can only be taken up in a joint sitting if it has not lapsed. Bills that cause typical deadlocks and originate in one House pending in the other often lapse upon dissolution.
Statement B is generally true for most common scenarios where a joint sitting might be required, as the Bill causing the deadlock would have lapsed.
Statement C is incorrect. Article 108(5) explicitly states that if the President has notified his intention to summon a joint sitting *before* the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the joint sitting *can* be held and the Bill passed, *notwithstanding* the dissolution, provided the Bill has not lapsed under Article 107.
Statement D is correct. Article 107(5) is the express provision in the Constitution regarding the effect of dissolution on a Bill which has been passed by the two Houses and sent to the President for assent. It states that such a Bill *shall not lapse*.
Article 107(5) provides that Bills passed by both Houses and pending Presidential assent or returned for reconsideration do not lapse upon dissolution. Article 108(5) provides a specific condition under which a joint sitting *can* be held after dissolution if notified before, provided the Bill has not lapsed. Statement D correctly identifies the presence of an express provision concerning Bills passed by both Houses and pending assent.
The interrelationship between dissolution of Lok Sabha, lapse of Bills (Article 107), and Joint Sittings (Article 108) is a complex area of constitutional law and parliamentary practice.

Join Our Telegram Channel

33. Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the ef

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the effects of dissolution of Lok Sabha?
1. The dissolution is irrevocable.
2. All business pending before the Lok Sabha lapses.
3. A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha immediately before its dissolution can be taken up by the Rajya Sabha.
Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Subscribe on YouTube
1, 2 and 3
1 and 2 only
1 only
2 and 3 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct. Once the Lok Sabha is dissolved, it ceases to exist and cannot be revived. A general election is held to constitute a new Lok Sabha.
Statement 2 is correct. As per Article 107(5) of the Constitution, a Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Houses. However, a Bill pending in the Lok Sabha, or a Bill which has passed by the Lok Sabha and is pending in the Rajya Sabha, shall lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha. This covers most of the business pending before the Lok Sabha.
Statement 3 is incorrect. As stated in Article 107(5), a Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, it cannot be taken up by the Rajya Sabha after the dissolution.
Dissolution terminates the life of the Lok Sabha. Most pending business, particularly Bills originating in or pending in the Lok Sabha, lapse upon dissolution.
Exceptions to the rule of lapse include Bills passed by both Houses and pending President’s assent or returned by the President for reconsideration (Article 107(5)). Also, Bills originating in and pending in the Rajya Sabha, which have not been sent to the Lok Sabha, do not lapse.

Join Our Telegram Channel

34. Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Before 1923, a Bill passed by one House and transmitted to the other House of the Central Legislative Assembly did not lapse upon dissolution of the House which had passed it.
Bills passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha on the date of dissolution of Lok Sabha, lapse.
Only Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, lapse.
Only Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, do not lapse.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement A is likely correct as a historical point regarding the Central Legislative Assembly before 1923. Rules regarding lapse upon dissolution have changed over time.
Statement B is correct. This is explicitly stated in Article 107(5) of the Constitution: a Bill which has passed by the Lok Sabha and is pending in the Rajya Sabha, shall lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
Statement C is incorrect. The statement claims that *only* Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, *lapse*. This is false. According to Article 107(4), a Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha shall *not* lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Such Bills originating in RS and pending in RS do *not* lapse. Furthermore, the word “Only” is incorrect, as other types of bills also lapse (e.g., bills pending in LS, bills passed by LS but pending in RS).
Statement D is correct. It states that *only* Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, *do not lapse*. While the word “Only” is incorrect as other bills also do not lapse (passed by both houses, pending assent/reconsideration), the core assertion that Bills originating and pending in Rajya Sabha (and not transmitted to LS) do not lapse is correct (Article 107(4)). However, compared to C, C’s core assertion that these bills *lapse* is fundamentally false, making C the “not correct” statement.
Bills originating in the Rajya Sabha and pending there (not having been sent to Lok Sabha) do not lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Statement C incorrectly claims that this category of bills *lapses*.
The rules regarding lapse of Bills upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha are crucial aspects of parliamentary procedure governed by Article 107 of the Constitution. Understanding which Bills lapse and which do not is essential.

Subscribe on YouTube

35. Which one of the following statements is *not* correct with regard to

Which one of the following statements is *not* correct with regard to quorum of Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Committees ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Quorum of the House is one-tenth of the total members of the House.
Quorum of a Parliamentary Committee is, as near as may be, one-third of its total members.
The House/Committee cannot commence its sitting without ensuring quorum.
Quorum is ensured only when it is pointed out by a member.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement A is correct. As per Article 100(3) of the Constitution, the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament is one-tenth of the total number of members of the House.
Statement B is correct. The Rules of Procedure of Parliament generally stipulate that the quorum for a meeting of a Parliamentary Committee shall be, as near as may be, one-third of the total number of members of the Committee.
Statement C is correct. Article 100(4) states that if at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, it shall be the duty of the Chairman or Speaker to adjourn the House or suspend the meeting until there is a quorum. Similar rules apply to committees. Business cannot commence without quorum.
Statement D is incorrect. Quorum must be ensured by the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman or Committee Chairperson) before commencing the sitting and also when the deficiency of quorum is pointed out by a member during the sitting. The requirement of quorum is mandatory for the validity of proceedings; it is not contingent *only* on a member pointing it out. The sitting should not commence or continue without quorum, whether pointed out or not.
Quorum is the minimum number of members required to be present for a legislative body or committee to conduct valid business. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to ensure quorum, not solely dependent on a member raising the issue.
If a sitting commences without quorum and is later discovered, the proceedings may be invalidated. If quorum is pointed out during a sitting and is lacking, the sitting is adjourned or suspended.

Subscribe on YouTube

36. Parliament of India consists

Parliament of India consists

Subscribe on YouTube
the President of India only
the House of the People and the Council of States only
The President of India, the House of the People and the Council of States
the Vice-President of India, the House of the People and the Council of States
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 79 of the Constitution of India defines the constitution of Parliament. It states: “There shall be a Parliament for the Union, which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.”
The Parliament of India is therefore composed of three parts: the President of India, the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
– The composition of the Parliament of India is defined by Article 79 of the Constitution.
– Parliament consists of the President, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the Lok Sabha (House of the People).
The President is an integral part of the Parliament, even though they do not sit or participate in discussions in either House. No bill passed by the Houses can become law without the President’s assent. The Vice-President is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha but is not a component of the Parliament itself.

Join Our Telegram Channel

37. Consider the following statements regarding enactment of budget in the

Consider the following statements regarding enactment of budget in the Parliament :

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. Railway Budget used to be presented before the General Budget.
  • 2. The Finance bill must be enacted within 75 days of its introduction.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
2 only
Neither 1 nor 2
Both 1 and 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both statements 1 and 2 are correct.
– Historically, the Railway Budget was presented separately before the General Budget. This practice was merged with the Union Budget in 2017.
– The Finance Bill contains the government’s financial proposals for the upcoming financial year, including tax proposals. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, allows the government to collect certain taxes for a period of up to 75 days immediately after the Finance Bill is introduced, pending its final enactment. This effectively requires the Finance Bill to be enacted within 75 days of its introduction to make these tax proposals permanent.
The budget enactment process involves several stages in Parliament, including presentation of the budget, general discussion, scrutiny by departmental standing committees, voting on demands for grants in the Lok Sabha, passing of the Appropriation Bill (authorising expenditure), and passing of the Finance Bill (giving effect to tax proposals).

38. Consider the following statements : 1. Economy cut motion asks the d

Consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. Economy cut motion asks the demand of grant be reduced by ₹ 100.
  • 2. The Rajya Sabha cannot move cut motions.
  • 3. Disapproval of policy cut motion states that the amount of the demand be reduced to ₹ 1.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 2 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is incorrect as it describes a token cut motion, not an economy cut motion.
– Policy Cut: Reduces the demand to ₹ 1, signifying disapproval of the policy.
– Economy Cut: Seeks reduction by a specific amount or a lump sum, aiming at economy.
– Token Cut: Reduces the demand by ₹ 100, expressing a specific grievance.
– Cut motions can only be moved in the Lok Sabha as demands for grants are exclusively debated and voted upon there. The Rajya Sabha discusses the demands but cannot vote on them or move cut motions.
Cut motions are instruments available to the members of the Lok Sabha to express their disapproval or suggest specific changes to the demands for grants presented by the government. They are moved during the discussion on the demands for grants. The passage of a cut motion in the Lok Sabha is considered a vote of no-confidence against the government.

39. Which one of the following statements is correct regarding lapse of bi

Which one of the following statements is correct regarding lapse of bills on dissolution of the Lok Sabha?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Pending assurances that are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances do not lapse.
A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha does not lapse.
A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha lapses.
All pending assurances that are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, most pending business before it, or pending before the Rajya Sabha but originating in the Lok Sabha, lapses. However, certain items do not lapse. These include:
1. A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha.
2. A bill passed by both Houses but pending assent of the President.
3. A bill passed by both Houses but returned by the President for reconsideration.
4. Pending assurances which are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances.
Option A correctly states that pending assurances do not lapse. Option B is incorrect as a bill passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha *does* lapse. Option C is incorrect because a bill pending in Rajya Sabha but *not* passed by the Lok Sabha *does not* lapse. Option D is the opposite of A and thus incorrect.
– Dissolution of Lok Sabha causes most pending bills to lapse.
– Bills originating and pending only in Rajya Sabha do not lapse.
– Pending assurances before the Committee on Government Assurances do not lapse.
The lapsing of bills upon dissolution is a significant feature of the parliamentary system as it reflects the mandate of the new Lok Sabha. The business that does not lapse includes items that are either outside the purview of just the Lok Sabha (like bills originating in Rajya Sabha or pending Presidential action) or relate to ongoing scrutiny (like assurances).

Subscribe on YouTube

40. Consider the following statements: 1. The maximum gap between two se

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament cannot be more than four months.
  • 2. Presiding officer can call a sitting of the House at any time after the House has been adjourned sine die.

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 Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect: As per Article 85(1) of the Constitution, the President shall summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. Thus, the maximum gap is six months, not four months.
Statement 2 is correct: When a House is adjourned ‘sine die’, it means the House is adjourned without naming a day for reassembly. The power to summon the House again after it has been adjourned sine die rests with the Presiding Officer (Speaker in case of Lok Sabha, Chairman in case of Rajya Sabha), who can call a sitting of the House at any time.
– The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament is six months.
– The Presiding Officer can summon the House after it is adjourned sine die.
Adjournment sine die is a powerful tool for the presiding officer, allowing flexibility in scheduling parliamentary business. The six-month limit between sessions ensures that Parliament meets at least twice a year, although typically, there are three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, Winter).

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5