Which one among the following statements about an adjournment motion in the Parliament of India is not correct?

Q: What is the answer to CDS (I) 2025 GK Q93?

C. Correct — C, This motion can be invoked on any matter of urgent importance that may even be within the jurisdiction of a State Government. This is the statement that is not correct, so it is what the question asks for. Rule 58 of the Lok Sabha rules lists eight restrictions on the right to move an adjournment motion, and the third of them says the motion 'shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence involving responsibility of the Government of India'. Those last words were added to the rule in 1989 precisely to shut out matters that belong to a State. The logic is the logic of the whole device: an adjournment motion is an instrument of accountability, it ends in an implied censure of the Government of India, and the House cannot censure the Union Government for something a State Government is answerable for. A subject in the State List, or an incident that is purely a State's administrative responsibility, is therefore ruled out however urgent it is. The other three statements survive the rule book. Rule 56 defines the motion as one for adjourning the business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, which is statement (a). The device sets aside the day's scheduled work to force that discussion, which is why it is standardly described as an extraordinary procedure, statement (b). And Rule 56 makes the motion possible only 'with the consent of the Speaker', with Rule 60 leaving both consent and admissibility to the Chair — the Speaker may even read the notice out and give reasons for refusing, but the refusal itself is not open to challenge, which is statement (d). (Provisional — pending the official UPSC key.)

(a)Its objective is to draw attention of the House to any recent matter of urgent public importance.
(b)Adjournment motion is an extraordinary procedure.
(c)This motion can be invoked on any matter of urgent importance that may even be within the jurisdiction of a State Government.
(d)The Chair has absolute discretion to refuse consent.

Answer

Why

Correct — C, This motion can be invoked on any matter of urgent importance that may even be within the jurisdiction of a State Government. This is the statement that is not correct, so it is what the question asks for. Rule 58 of the Lok Sabha rules lists eight restrictions on the right to move an adjournment motion, and the third of them says the motion 'shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence involving responsibility of the Government of India'. Those last words were added to the rule in 1989 precisely to shut out matters that belong to a State. The logic is the logic of the whole device: an adjournment motion is an instrument of accountability, it ends in an implied censure of the Government of India, and the House cannot censure the Union Government for something a State Government is answerable for. A subject in the State List, or an incident that is purely a State's administrative responsibility, is therefore ruled out however urgent it is. The other three statements survive the rule book. Rule 56 defines the motion as one for adjourning the business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, which is statement (a). The device sets aside the day's scheduled work to force that discussion, which is why it is standardly described as an extraordinary procedure, statement (b). And Rule 56 makes the motion possible only 'with the consent of the Speaker', with Rule 60 leaving both consent and admissibility to the Chair — the Speaker may even read the notice out and give reasons for refusing, but the refusal itself is not open to challenge, which is statement (d).

Why the others are wrong

(a)Its objective is to draw attention of the House to any recent matter of urgent public importance. — This one is correct, so it cannot be the answer to a 'not correct' stem. Rule 56 defines the motion in almost these words — a definite matter of urgent public importance — and Rule 58(iii) adds that the matter must be of recent occurrence.
(b)Adjournment motion is an extraordinary procedure. — Also correct. The motion suspends the normal business of the House so that the urgent matter can be taken up, and that interruption of ordinary work is exactly what makes it extraordinary rather than routine.
(d)The Chair has absolute discretion to refuse consent. — Also correct. Rule 56 allows the motion only with the consent of the Speaker, and Rule 60 leaves the decision on consent and on admissibility with the Chair; the Speaker may read out the notice and give reasons for refusing, but the refusal is not appealable within the House.

Concept

An adjournment motion is a motion to adjourn the business of the House so that a definite matter of urgent public importance can be discussed instead. It exists in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha. Because it interrupts the day's scheduled work and because its adoption is treated as a censure of the Government, it is hedged about with conditions: the Speaker's consent under Rule 56, notice by ten in the morning under Rule 57, eight restrictions under Rule 58, and the support of at least fifty members if leave is objected to under Rule 60. The debate itself is taken up at four in the afternoon and must run for at least two and a half hours.

Every option here is a claim about a rule, so the safest route is to ask which one a rule actually contradicts. Three of the four are simply the rule book restated. The fourth widens the motion to matters within a State Government's jurisdiction, and that is the single thing Rule 58(iii) was amended to forbid. A useful way to hold the restriction is to remember what a successful adjournment motion means: the House has set aside its own agenda to record disapproval of the Union Government. Ask 'who would be censured by this?' and any State subject falls away at once. Two further restrictions in Rule 58 are worth carrying alongside — the motion cannot deal with a matter under adjudication by a court, and it cannot revive a discussion already held in the same session. It is also worth separating the two hurdles the motion has to clear, because questions like to blur them: consent is the Speaker's alone, while leave is the House's, and if objection is taken the motion needs fifty members to rise in support.

Key facts

Rule 58(iii) restricts an adjournment motion to a specific matter of recent occurrence involving responsibility of the Government of India; those words were added to the rule in 1989.
Rule 56 allows the motion only with the consent of the Speaker, and Rule 57 requires notice by 10.00 hours on the day it is to be moved.
If objection is taken to leave being granted, Rule 60(2) requires not less than fifty members to rise in support.
Rule 61 has the motion taken up at 16.00 hours, and Rule 62 lets the Speaker put the question at 18.30 hours or after at least two and a half hours of debate.
Rule 58 also bars a motion that raises a question of privilege, revives a discussion held in the same session, anticipates a matter already set down, or deals with a matter under adjudication by a court.
The adjournment motion exists only in the Lok Sabha; the Rajya Sabha has no equivalent device.
Speaker's Direction 2 places leave to move an adjournment motion sixth in the order of business, immediately after Question Hour.

Four claims about the adjournment motion, checked against the Lok Sabha rules

Draws attention to a recent matter of urgent public importance→Correct — Rule 56 with Rule 58(iii), which adds that the matter must be of recent occurrence.

An extraordinary procedure→Correct — it sets aside the day's listed business, and its adoption amounts to a censure of the Government.

May be invoked even on a matter within a State Government's jurisdiction→NOT correct — Rule 58(iii) confines it to matters involving responsibility of the Government of India.

The Chair has absolute discretion to refuse consent→Correct — Rule 56 requires the Speaker's consent, and Rule 60 leaves consent and admissibility with the Chair.

Only one option contradicts a rule. Ask who would be censured, and the State-jurisdiction claim falls.

Study next

The full list of eight restrictions in Rule 58 and the reason behind eachHow an adjournment motion differs from a no-confidence motion, a censure motion and a calling-attention noticeWhy the Rajya Sabha has no adjournment motion, and what it uses insteadThe Speaker's Directions as a source of parliamentary procedure alongside the RulesQuestion Hour, Zero Hour and the half-an-hour discussion as the other devices for raising urgent matters

Common traps

Believing an adjournment motion can be moved on any urgent matter. It must involve the responsibility of the Government of India.
Confusing the Speaker's consent with the leave of the House; consent is the Chair's alone, leave needs fifty members if objected to.
Treating an adjournment motion as a device to adjourn a sitting for disorder; adjourning the House for indiscipline is a separate power altogether.
Looking for the adjournment motion in the Rajya Sabha, where it does not exist.

Either as a 'which statement is not correct' item like this one, or by asking what the purpose of an adjournment motion is, or by asking for the minimum number of members needed for leave.

Related PYQs

UPSC_2012_GS1_Q22012Open & attempt →

In the Parliament of India, the purpose of an adjournment motion is

(a) to allow a discussion on a definite matter of urgent public importance
(b) to let opposition members collect information from the Ministers
(c) to allow a reduction of specific amount in demand for grant
(d) to postpone the proceedings to check the inappropriate or violent behaviour on the part of some members

Answer(a) to allow a discussion on a definite matter of urgent public importance

The same device asked from the front. That item establishes exactly what this one's option (a) asserts, and its wrong options are the confusions worth learning — a cut motion reduces a demand for grant, and adjourning proceedings to check disorderly behaviour is a different power entirely.

UPSC_2017_GS1_Q502017Open & attempt →

The Parliament of India exercises control over the functions of the Council of Ministers through 1. Adjournment motion 2. Question hour 3. Supplementary questions Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer(d) 1, 2 and 3

Places the adjournment motion among the instruments by which Parliament holds the Council of Ministers to account. That framing is what explains the restriction tested here: an instrument of control over the Union executive cannot be turned on a matter for which a State Government answers.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
If objection is taken to leave being granted for an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha, at least how many members must rise in their places in support?
- (a)Twenty-five
- (b)Fifty
- (c)One hundred
- (d)One-tenth of the total membership of the House
Answer(b) Fifty — Rule 60(2) requires not less than fifty members to rise, failing which the member does not have the leave of the House.
practice — not a real PYQ
The device of the adjournment motion is available in which House of the Parliament of India?
- (a)The Rajya Sabha only
- (b)The Lok Sabha only
- (c)Both Houses
- (d)Only in a joint sitting of both Houses
Answer(b) The Lok Sabha only — the Rajya Sabha's rules provide no adjournment motion.

Which one among the following statements about an adjournment motion in the Parliament of India is not correct?

(a)Its objective is to draw attention of the House to any recent matter of urgent public importance.

(b)Adjournment motion is an extraordinary procedure.

(c)This motion can be invoked on any matter of urgent importance that may even be within the jurisdiction of a State Government.

(d)The Chair has absolute discretion to refuse consent.