The Parliament

41. Consider the following statements: 1. Presiding officer of a House d

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. Presiding officer of a House does not vote in the first instance.
  • 2. Presiding officer can permit a member to address the House in his/her mother tongue.
  • 3. Attorney General can take part in proceedings as well as vote in both Houses due to constitutional nature of the post.

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 1 is correct: The presiding officer (Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha) does not vote in the first instance. They can exercise a casting vote only in the case of a tie to resolve a deadlock.
Statement 2 is correct: Article 120 of the Constitution allows members to speak in Hindi, English, or if they cannot adequately express themselves in either, in their mother tongue with the permission of the presiding officer. Simultaneous translation facilities are often provided.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Article 88 of the Constitution allows the Attorney General of India to take part in the proceedings of either House of Parliament, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but he shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote.
– Presiding officers cast a vote only in case of a tie.
– Members can speak in their mother tongue with the presiding officer’s permission.
– The Attorney General can participate in proceedings but cannot vote.
The principle of the presiding officer not voting in the first instance is borrowed from British parliamentary practice to ensure impartiality. The provision for speaking in the mother tongue acknowledges linguistic diversity within Parliament. The Attorney General’s role is primarily advisory to the Parliament, hence the right to participate but not vote.

Subscribe on YouTube

42. Consider the following statements regarding question hour and zero hou

Consider the following statements regarding question hour and zero hour :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • Zero hour is not mentioned in the Rules of Procedure.
  • Un-starred questions can have supplementary questions.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

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 correct, while statement 2 is incorrect. Zero Hour is not explicitly mentioned in the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. Supplementary questions can only be asked for starred questions, not unstarred ones.
Statement 1 is correct. Zero Hour is an informal device available to the members of Parliament to raise urgent matters of public importance without prior notice. It starts immediately after the Question Hour and lasts until the agenda for the day is taken up. It is not mentioned in the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Questions asked in Parliament are mainly of three types: starred, unstarred, and short notice. Starred questions require an oral answer, and supplementary questions can be asked after the main answer is given. Unstarred questions require a written answer, and no supplementary questions can be asked.
The Question Hour is the first hour of every parliamentary sitting and is mentioned in the Rules of Procedure. During Question Hour, MPs ask questions to ministers, who are obliged to answer. Zero Hour follows the Question Hour and is a unique feature of the Indian Parliament, allowing members to raise matters without prior notice, though its operation has been streamlined over time.

Join Our Telegram Channel

43. Consider the following statements : Subsidiary motion by itself has

Consider the following statements :

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • Subsidiary motion by itself has no meaning.
  • In Kangaroo closure, only important clauses are debated and voted.
  • Removal of the President of India comes under substantive motion.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
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
All three statements are correct. Subsidiary motions depend on or relate to another motion. Kangaroo closure involves debating and voting only on selected, important parts. Removal of the President is a substantive motion.
Statement 1 is correct. Subsidiary motions, such as motions to adjourn, close debate, or amend, have no independent meaning and must be connected to a substantive motion.
Statement 2 is correct. Kangaroo closure is a procedural device where the presiding officer selects only the most important clauses of a Bill or resolution for discussion and voting, effectively skipping discussion and voting on the less important clauses to save time.
Statement 3 is correct. A substantive motion is an independent proposal dealing with a significant matter (like impeachment of the President or Chief Justice, or a vote of no-confidence), requiring a decision by the House. The motion for the removal of the President is a self-contained proposal of great importance.
Motions in parliamentary procedure are broadly classified into substantive, substitute, and subsidiary motions. A substantive motion is a self-contained proposal. A substitute motion is moved in substitution of the original motion and, if adopted, replaces the original motion. Subsidiary motions aid in deciding the original or substantive motion. Closure is a tool used to cut short debate on a motion. Different types of closure include simple closure, closure by compartment (guillotine), and kangaroo closure.

44. Consider the following statements regarding various motions in Parliam

Consider the following statements regarding various motions in Parliament :

  • Calling Attention Motion is an Indian innovation.
  • The Rajya Sabha can make use of Adjournment Motion.
  • Motion of Thanks is voted.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
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
The correct option is C because statement 1 (Calling Attention Motion is Indian innovation) and statement 3 (Motion of Thanks is voted) are correct, while statement 2 (Rajya Sabha using Adjournment Motion) is incorrect.
Indian parliamentary procedure has unique devices like the Calling Attention Motion. Different motions serve distinct purposes and have specific rules regarding which House can use them and whether they are voted upon.
The Calling Attention Motion is a unique Indian contribution to parliamentary procedure, allowing members to call a minister’s attention to urgent public matters. Adjournment Motion is a serious procedure used only in the Lok Sabha to discuss a matter of urgent public importance by interrupting normal business; Rajya Sabha cannot use it. The Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address is a formal motion debated and put to vote in both Houses. Amendments can also be moved to this motion.

Join Our Telegram Channel

45. Consider the following statements regarding censure and no-confidence

Consider the following statements regarding censure and no-confidence motions :

  • No-confidence motion needs the support of 50 members to be admitted.
  • There is a need to state reason for moving the no-confidence motion.
  • Censure motion can be moved against individual minister.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
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
The correct option is C because statement 1 (50 members support for no-confidence motion) and statement 3 (censure motion against individual minister) are correct, while statement 2 (need to state reason for no-confidence motion) is incorrect.
No-confidence and Censure motions are parliamentary tools to hold the Council of Ministers accountable, but they differ in scope and requirements.
A No-confidence Motion can only be moved in the Lok Sabha against the entire Council of Ministers. As per Rule 198 of Lok Sabha rules, it requires the support of at least 50 members to be admitted. While the underlying reason is lack of confidence, the motion itself does not need to explicitly state the reasons. A Censure Motion can be moved against an individual minister, a group of ministers, or the entire Council of Ministers, and it specifically states the reasons for censure (disapproval of specific policy or action).

Join Our Telegram Channel

46. Consider the following statements: The Rajya Sabha does not have a d

Consider the following statements:

  • The Rajya Sabha does not have a device called Special Mention.
  • Short duration discussion was introduced in the Parliament post-1991.

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
The correct option is D because both statements are incorrect. Special Mention is a device available in Rajya Sabha, and Short Duration Discussion was introduced much earlier than 1991.
Parliamentary procedures include various devices for members to raise matters of public importance. ‘Special Mention’ is a Rajya Sabha procedure, while ‘Short Duration Discussion’ has been a part of parliamentary practice for decades.
Special Mention is a procedure in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) under which a Member can raise a matter of urgent public importance with the permission of the Chairman. The Lok Sabha (Lower House) has a similar procedure called ‘Raising a Matter Under Rule 377’. Short Duration Discussion, also known as ‘Two-Hour Discussion’, was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1953. Therefore, both statements are factually incorrect regarding the specific house and introduction timeline.

Subscribe on YouTube

47. Consider the following statements regarding public and private bills :

Consider the following statements regarding public and private bills :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. Passing of public bill and private bill is governed by same process.
  • 2. Minister cannot introduce a private bill.
  • 3. One month notice is needed to introduce a private bill in the House.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

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
Statements 2 and 3 are correct, while Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because while the general stages (introduction, readings, committee stage, etc.) are superficially similar, the rules of procedure and the business allocation differ significantly for public (government) bills and private member’s bills. For instance, private members’ bills are discussed only on Fridays and go to a specific Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Resolutions. Statement 2 is correct; a minister introduces a public bill (government bill). A private member’s bill is introduced by any Member of Parliament who is not a minister. Statement 3 is correct; the rules of procedure require one month’s notice for the introduction of a private member’s bill.
Public bills are introduced by ministers, while private bills are introduced by non-minister MPs. There are procedural differences in how they are processed and prioritized in Parliament.
Private members’ bills have a much lower chance of being passed compared to public bills, as they do not have the backing of the government. They are primarily used to raise issues of public importance or gauge the sense of the House on certain matters.

Join Our Telegram Channel

48. Consider the following statements regarding resolutions in Parliament

Consider the following statements regarding resolutions in Parliament :

  • 1. All resolutions are motions.
  • 2. Not all resolutions are to be voted.

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 correct, and Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct; a resolution is a particular kind of motion. A motion is a formal proposal made to the House requesting it to take some action or express an opinion. A resolution is a motion that, if adopted, becomes an expression of the opinion or determination of the House. Thus, all resolutions originate as motions. Statement 2 is incorrect; generally, all resolutions are put to the vote of the House for adoption. A resolution represents a formal decision or opinion of the House and is passed through voting, unlike some other types of motions which may only lead to a discussion.
A resolution is a type of motion that, when passed, signifies the formal opinion or determination of the House and is typically adopted by voting.
Motions can be substantive, substitute, or subsidiary. Resolutions are usually substantive motions. Examples include resolutions approving government policy, declaring a state of emergency, or expressing disapproval of government actions. Private members can also move resolutions on matters of public interest.

Subscribe on YouTube

49. Consider the following statements : 1. Money bills cannot be sent ba

Consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. Money bills cannot be sent back for reconsideration by the President.
  • 2. Money bills have no provision for joint sittings.
  • 3. Defeat of ordinary bill when introduced by a minister may lead to the resignation of the Government.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

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
All the statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct; under Article 111, the President cannot withhold assent to a Money Bill nor return it for reconsideration; the President must either give assent or withhold assent (though the latter is considered a rare and constitutionally questionable act for Money Bills). Statement 2 is correct; there is no provision for a joint sitting for Money Bills because the Lok Sabha has overriding powers, and a deadlock cannot arise as the bill is deemed passed after 14 days if not returned or if recommendations are not accepted by Lok Sabha. Statement 3 is correct; the defeat of a government bill (introduced by a minister) in the Lok Sabha implies a loss of confidence of the House in the Council of Ministers, which is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, and this typically leads to the resignation of the government.
Money Bills have special procedures regarding Presidential assent and are excluded from the joint sitting mechanism. Defeat of a government bill is a serious matter with potential implications for the government’s stability.
The President giving assent to a Money Bill is mandatory under Article 111, signifying the special status of these bills which are related to the government’s financial proposals already approved by the Lok Sabha. Collective responsibility (Article 75) is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy; the defeat of a significant government measure indicates that the government may not command the majority necessary to govern.

Join Our Telegram Channel

50. Consider the following statements regarding Money bills : 1. They ca

Consider the following statements regarding Money bills :

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. They can be introduced only after the President’s recommendation.
  • 2. Money bill can be introduced only by a Minister.
  • 3. Speaker’s decision to decide whether a bill is a money bill or not cannot be questioned in the courts.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
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
Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as a Money Bill can be introduced in Lok Sabha only on the recommendation of the President (Article 117(1) read with Article 110). Statement 2 is correct as Money Bills are essentially government bills and can only be introduced by a minister. Statement 3 is incorrect; while Article 110(3) states that the Speaker’s decision on whether a bill is a Money Bill is final, this finality applies within the legislative process and does not preclude judicial review by the Supreme Court or High Courts on grounds of illegality, malafides, or constitutional infirmity, as held in various judgments.
Money Bills require President’s recommendation and can only be introduced by a minister in Lok Sabha. The Speaker’s decision is final within Parliament but subject to judicial review.
Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha has limited powers over Money Bills; it cannot amend or reject a Money Bill but can only make recommendations, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject. The Rajya Sabha must return a Money Bill within 14 days.

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5