{"id":93885,"date":"2025-06-01T11:59:07","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=93885"},"modified":"2025-06-01T11:59:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:59:07","slug":"which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/","title":{"rendered":"Which one of the following statements is correct?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Which one of the following statements is correct?<\/p>\n

[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″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nStatement 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.
\nStatement B is generally true for most common scenarios where a joint sitting might be required, as the Bill causing the deadlock would have lapsed.
\nStatement 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.
\nStatement 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*.
\n<\/section>\n
\nArticle 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.
\n<\/section>\n
\nThe 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.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionWhich one of the following statements is correct?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1095],"tags":[1101,1099,1111],"class_list":["post-93885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-so-steno","tag-1101","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","tag-the-parliament","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nWhich one of the following statements is correct?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"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.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Which one of the following statements is correct?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T11:59:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Which one of the following statements is correct?","description":"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.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Which one of the following statements is correct?","og_description":"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.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T11:59:07+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/","name":"Which one of the following statements is correct?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T11:59:07+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T11:59:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"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.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-is-correct-51\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC SO-Steno","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-so-steno\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Which one of the following statements is correct?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}