{"id":93886,"date":"2025-06-01T11:59:08","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=93886"},"modified":"2025-06-01T11:59:08","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:59:08","slug":"which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Which of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef"},"content":{"rendered":"

Which of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the effect of dissolution of Lok Sabha ?
\n1. Supplementary Demands for grants do not lapse.
\n2. 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.
\n3. Anything said or done during the existence of a House, can be raised as a privilege issue after that House has been dissolved.
\nSelect the correct answer using the code given below :<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”1,2and 3″ option2=”1 and 2 only” option3=”2 only” option4=”1 and 3 only” correct=”option3″]<\/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 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.
\nStatement 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.
\nStatement 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.
\n<\/section>\n
\nWhile 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.
\n<\/section>\n
\nThe 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.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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, … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionWhich of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef<\/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-93886","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 of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"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.\" \/>\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-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Which of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T11:59:08+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 of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef","description":"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.","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-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Which of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef","og_description":"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.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T11:59:08+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-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/","name":"Which of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T11:59:08+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T11:59:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"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.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-of-the-following-statements-is-are-correct-with-regard-to-the-ef-2\/#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 of the following statements is\/are correct with regard to the ef"}]},{"@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\/93886","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=93886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}