💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open

Subject: ParliamentxProcedures

  • Delay in prorogation of Parliament leading to suspicion: Ramesh

    Why in the News

    The Monsoon Session of Parliament has not been prorogued 17 days after both Houses were adjourned sine die, so the session remains technically alive. The consequence is that the government can reconvene Parliament without issuing a fresh presidential summons, and speculation has followed about a Special Session to revive the Delimitation Bill. The Congress has formally objected, calling the delay mystifying and saying it suggests mischief. The tension is that a step treated as a formality decides who controls the timing of the next sitting, and that control currently rests entirely with the executive.

    What is prorogation?

    1. Definition: Prorogation formally terminates a session of Parliament, as distinct from an adjournment, which only ends a sitting.
    2. Who exercises it: It is done by the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and a fresh session after it requires a fresh summons.
    3. Adjournment sine die is not the same thing: Adjournment sine die ends the sittings of a session without fixing a date to reassemble, and the presiding officer may still call the House back until prorogation is notified.
    4. Effect on business: Pending Bills do not lapse on prorogation. Pending notices, motions and questions before the House do lapse.

    What has actually happened with the Monsoon Session?

    1. The sittings ended in mid August: Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were adjourned sine die on 13 August, bringing the Monsoon Session to a close in practical terms.
    2. The session was never formally ended: Prorogation has not been notified 17 days after the last meeting of the House.
    3. The gap has a functional value: Keeping the session alive allows the government to reconvene Parliament without a fresh presidential summons.
    4. A specific legislative purpose is suspected: The delay has generated speculation about a Special Session to revive the Delimitation Bill.

    What is the Opposition objecting to?

    1. The objection is to the silence, not the delay alone: The Congress communications chief said the continued delay leads to suspicions that mischief is afoot.
    2. The numbers argument is being made publicly: The party’s position is that the Union Home Minister does not command the two thirds majority the legislation would need, and is engaging in bluff.
    3. The objection was raised at the highest level: The Congress president wrote to the Prime Minister restating the party’s position on delimitation and on the expansion of the Lok Sabha.

    What are the Congress’s linked demands?

    1. A freeze on Lok Sabha strength: The party has asked that the existing strength of the Lower House be frozen at 543 seats for the next 15 years.
    2. Implementation of women’s reservation: It has sought implementation of the legislation reserving a third of the seats for women Members of Parliament in time for the 2029 Lok Sabha election.

    Challenges in the exercise of the prorogation and summoning power

    1. The Constitution fixes no minimum number of sitting days: Article 85 requires only that six months not elapse between two sessions, which sets a floor on gaps and none on work. Eg. The Lok Sabha has in several recent years sat for fewer than 70 days against the roughly 130 days it averaged in the 1950s. Fix. Enact a fixed parliamentary calendar prescribing a minimum number of annual sitting days, as the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended.
    2. Summoning is effectively an executive decision: The President acts on ministerial advice, so the government decides when the legislature that scrutinises it will meet. Eg. Legislatures in several States have met for single day sessions to satisfy the six month requirement. Fix. Give a fixed proportion of members the power to requisition a sitting, as several parliamentary systems provide.
    3. Long inter session gaps enable government by ordinance: Where the House is not in session, the executive can legislate through ordinances under Article 123 and seek approval later. Eg. Ordinances have been repromulgated across successive gaps, a practice the Supreme Court criticised in Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar (2017). Fix. Require an ordinance to be laid with a written statement of the immediate necessity that justified bypassing the House.
    4. Deferred prorogation leaves members in an undefined status: With the session alive but not sitting, notices and motions neither lapse nor come up for disposal. Eg. Questions and motions admitted for a session that is neither prorogued nor reconvened simply remain pending without a listing date. Fix. Provide by rule that prorogation follows adjournment sine die within a fixed number of days unless the House is recalled.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is not about whether the government may keep a session alive, since the power plainly permits it, but about whether a power designed as a formal closing step can be held open to preserve an option over legislation. What to watch is whether a Special Session is convened before prorogation is notified, since that would confirm the delay was a legislative strategy rather than an administrative lapse.

    Back2Basics

    1. Definition: Delimitation is the redrawing of the boundaries and the reallocation of the number of seats of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies to reflect changes in population.
    2. Constitutional basis: Article 82 requires readjustment after every census, on principles Parliament determines by law.
    3. Machinery: A Delimitation Commission is constituted under a Delimitation Act, and its orders cannot be questioned in any court.
    4. The current freeze: The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 froze the number of Lok Sabha seats allocated to each State on the 1971 census figures until the first census taken after 2026.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024] With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements: 1. Prorogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers. 2. Prorogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die, but there is no bar to the President of India proroguing the House which is in session. 3. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 (c) 2 and 3* (d) 3 only ANSWER: (c)”

  • Cong: LS not prorogued, is Shah still pushing delimitation Bill?

    Why in the News

    The Congress general secretary in-charge of communications has questioned why the Lok Sabha has not been prorogued ten days after being adjourned sine die. He asked whether the Union Home Minister was still in search of a two-thirds majority to get the Constitutional Amendment Bill on delimitation passed in a special session. The reference is to a twin legislative package: a Constitutional Amendment Bill to advance women’s reservation to 2029, and a Delimitation Bill to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha to up to 850 seats. A House that has been adjourned sine die but not prorogued remains technically in session, which leaves the Presiding Officer able to reconvene it without a fresh summons from the President. A former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha has stated that no clear rule fixes when Parliament should be prorogued after a House is adjourned sine die.

    What is prorogation?

    1. The act itself: Prorogation is the formal termination of a session of a House of Parliament by the President. It ends the session, unlike adjournment, which only suspends a sitting.
    2. Who exercises it: The President prorogues the House on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister advises the President on summoning and proroguing Parliament and on dissolving the Lok Sabha.
    3. How it differs from adjournment sine die: Adjournment sine die is the termination of a sitting for an indefinite period, and it is done by the Presiding Officer of the House. The House remains in session until prorogation is notified.
    4. What it does to pending business: Prorogation ends all pending notices, including questions and motions, other than Bills, which do not lapse on prorogation. Bills lapse only on dissolution of the Lok Sabha, subject to the exceptions the Constitution provides.

    Why does the ten day gap matter?

    1. The normal interval: The time gap between the adjournment of the Lok Sabha sine die and its prorogation is generally two to four days. There are many instances when adjournment and prorogation have taken place on the very same day.
    2. The interval in this case: Ten days have passed since the House was adjourned sine die. No information on its prorogation has been made available.
    3. The longer precedents cited: The gap for the Monsoon Session was 28 days in 2015 and 20 days in 2021. The Congress position is that no comparable legislative move was pending on either occasion.
    4. What an unprorogued House permits: A House still in session can be reconvened by the Presiding Officer without the President issuing a fresh summons. The procedural cost of resuming business is therefore lower than convening a special session from scratch.
    5. The political inference drawn: The Congress reading is that the delay preserves the option of resuming the same session once the numbers for a Constitutional Amendment are assembled. The Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs did not respond to a request for comment.

    What is the twin legislative package at issue?

    1. The Constitutional Amendment Bill: It seeks to advance the implementation of women’s reservation to 2029. The 106th Constitutional Amendment of 2023 provides 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, and ties implementation to the next Census and a fresh delimitation.
    2. The Delimitation Bill: It seeks to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha to up to 850 seats. A delimitation exercise would be required to give effect to that expansion.
    3. What delimitation is: Delimitation is the act of fixing the limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies to reflect population changes. Article 82 mandates Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census.
    4. The freeze the package would end: The 42nd Amendment of 1976 froze seat allocation on the 1971 Census until 2000, and the 84th Amendment of 2001 extended that freeze until the first Census after 2026. The proposed expansion is the first readjustment of Lok Sabha strength since that freeze was imposed.
    5. Why the majority threshold governs the timing: A Constitutional Amendment Bill requires a special majority, which includes a majority of the total membership of each House and two-thirds of members present and voting. The Bill cannot be moved to a vote until that support exists.

    Is there a rule the delay breaches?

    1. No fixed interval is prescribed: No clear rule states when Parliament should be prorogued after a House is adjourned sine die, in the assessment of a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha. Prorogation is described as a routine practice rather than a timed obligation.
    2. The constitutional source of the power: Article 85(2)(a) empowers the President to prorogue the Houses from time to time. Article 85(2)(b) separately empowers the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha.
    3. The only hard timing rule: Article 85(1) requires that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next. That is the outer limit on the gap between sessions, not on the gap before prorogation.
    4. Where the discretion actually sits: The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising the power. The executive therefore controls both the summoning and the closing of a session.

    Challenges to prorogation as a procedural check

    1. The timing is entirely executive-controlled: No statute or rule of procedure obliges the government to advise prorogation within a stated period. Eg. The interval has ranged from the same day to 28 days for the Monsoon Session of 2015. Fix. Prescribe an outer limit in the Rules of Procedure requiring prorogation within a fixed number of days of adjournment sine die.
    2. Parliament cannot summon itself: Members have no mechanism to require a sitting where the executive does not advise one. Eg. The Article 85(1) six month rule is the only enforceable constraint, and it permits long stretches with no sitting. Fix. Adopt a statutory parliamentary calendar fixing the number of sitting days per year, as the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended in 2002 at 110 days.
    3. The special session route bypasses the ordinary calendar: A session convened outside the three-session cycle compresses notice, scrutiny and committee referral. Eg. The Women’s Reservation Bill in 2023 was introduced and passed within a special session convened for the purpose. Fix. Require that any Bill taken up in a special session first stand referred to a Departmentally Related Standing Committee.
    4. Prorogation ends scrutiny instruments without ending the government’s agenda: Questions and motions lapse on prorogation and Bills survive it, so the balance of the reset favours the executive. Eg. A pending starred question falls away while the Bill it concerned remains on the books. Fix. Carry over admitted questions and motions to the succeeding session on the model used for Bills.
    5. The ordinance route substitutes for a sitting House: A prorogued House allows the executive to legislate by ordinance under Article 123. Eg. Ordinances have been repromulgated across successive gaps between sessions rather than replaced by legislation. Fix. Enforce the bar on repromulgation laid down in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) by requiring a laid statement of reasons for every ordinance.

    Conclusion

    The Lok Sabha stands adjourned sine die and not yet prorogued ten days on, which keeps the session formally alive and the option of reconvening it open. No rule fixes the permissible interval, so the delay is unusual rather than irregular, and the objection raised is about intent rather than legality. The twin legislative package at issue, the Constitutional Amendment on women’s reservation and the Delimitation Bill that accompanies it, remains untabled for a vote. The next milestone is the notification of prorogation or the summoning of a session in which the Constitutional Amendment Bill is moved.

    “[2024] With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:

    1. Prorogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers.

    2. Prorogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die, but there is no bar to the President of India proroguing the House which is in session.

    3. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2

    (c) 2 and 3

    (d) 3 only

  • Criminal Cases Among Rajya Sabha MPs (ADR Report)

    Why in News?

    A report by the Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch found that 31% of sitting Rajya Sabha MPs have declared criminal cases, while 16% have declared serious criminal cases in their election affidavits.

    Key Findings

    • Analysis covered 226 of 233 Rajya Sabha MPs.
      • 4 seats (West Bengal) were vacant.
      • 3 MPs were excluded as affidavits were unavailable.
    • 69 MPs (31%) declared criminal cases.
    • 36 MPs (16%) declared serious criminal cases.
    • Serious offences include:
      • 1 MP with a murder case.
      • 4 MPs with attempt to murder cases.
      • 4 MPs with crimes against women.

    Party-wise Criminal Cases

    • BJP: 28 of 107 MPs (26%), Congress: 12 of 29 MPs (41%), AITC: 2 of 9 MPs (22%), DMK: 2 of 8 MPs (25%), SP: 2 of 4 MPs (50%), TDP: 3 of 4 MPs (75%), BRS: 3 of 3 MPs (100%), CPI(M): 3 of 3 MPs (100%), RJD: 2 of 3 MPs (67%), AIADMK: 1 of 4 MPs (25%), NCP: 1 of 4 MPs (25%), and AAP: 1 of 3 MPs (33%)

    Wealth Profile

    • 31 MPs (14%) declared assets exceeding ₹100 crore.
    • Major parties: BJP: 7 MPs, Congress: 6 MPs, YSRCP: 2 MPs, TDP: 2 MPs, BRS: 2 MPs, and NCP: 2 MPs

    About ADR

    • The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a non-governmental, non-partisan organization established in 1999.
    • It works to promote:
      • Electoral transparency.
      • Political and electoral reforms.
      • Informed voting through analysis of candidates’ affidavits.
    • ADR uses disclosures mandated by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.

    Constitutional and Legal Background

    • Article 80: Composition of the Rajya Sabha.
    • Representation of the People Act, 1951
      • Section 8: Disqualification upon conviction for specified offences.
    • Mere pendency of criminal cases does not disqualify a candidate unless a conviction attracts disqualification under law.
    • Candidates must disclose criminal antecedents in nomination affidavits following Supreme Court judgments.

    [2020] Consider the following statements:

    1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State. 

    2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison. 

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    a . 1 only

    b . 2 only

    c. Both 1 and 2

    d . Neither 1 nor 2

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate election disputes.
    3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    1. In the election for Lok Sabha or State Assembly, the winning candidate must get at least 50 percent of the votes polled, to be declared elected.
    2. According to the provisions laid down in the Constitution of India, in Lok Sabha, the Speaker’s post goes to the majority party and the Deputy Speaker’s to the Opposition.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts several posts from disqualification on the grounds of ‘Office of Profit’.
    2. The above-mentioned Act was amended five times.
    3. The term ‘Office of Profit’ is well-defined in the Constitution of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks fit.
    2. The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions.
    3. There is no minimum number of days of that the Parliament is required to meet in a year.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • In the Parliament of India, the purpose of an Adjournment Motion is

    In the Parliament of India, the purpose of an Adjournment Motion is:

  • The Parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international

    The Parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international
    treaties

  • Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India

    Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India:
    1. There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India.
    2. A motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?