Which one of the following statements is correct?
[amp_mcq option1=”A Bill can be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses notwithstanding the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.” option2=”A Bill cannot be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses after Lok Sabha is dissolved.” option3=”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.” option4=”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.” correct=”option4″]
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
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*.