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 :
1,2and 3
1 and 2 only
2 only
1 and 3 only
Answer is Right!
Answer is Wrong!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
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.