Which one of the following statements about 'Motions' in the Parliament of India is correct ?

Correct — C, Rajya Sabha is not empowered to entertain a motion of No-Confidence. Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People and to no other body, so the instrument by which that responsibility is enforced belongs to the Lok Sabha alone. The Rajya Sabha may discuss, question and criticise a government at length, but it cannot vote it out, and its rules provide no such motion. The other three statements each invert a real rule. A no-confidence motion cannot be aimed at one minister, because the responsibility it enforces is collective — the motion is against the entire Council of Ministers, and if it is carried the whole Council goes. It also needs no grounds: the mover states no charge and the Speaker admits it if not fewer than fifty members rise in support, the question being simply whether the House still has confidence. That is precisely what separates it from a censure motion, which must name its charge and may be directed at one minister, at a group of ministers or at the Council as a whole, and which does not compel resignation even if carried. Neither motion is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution; both are creatures of the rules of procedure that each House frames under Article 118.

• (a)A Motion of No-Confidence can be admissible against an individual minister in the Council of Ministers. — Confuses the two motions. Individual targeting belongs to the censure motion; no-confidence enforces collective responsibility and lies only against the whole Council.
• (b)A No-Confidence Motion must set out grounds on which it is based. — Exactly backwards. The no-confidence motion states no grounds — it is the censure motion that must specify the charge.
• (d)A Censure Motion need not be based on specific grounds or charges. — The mirror of the same error. A censure motion is admissible only if it sets out the specific charge it makes.

Parliamentary motions are the devices by which a House takes up business and holds the executive to account, and they differ in who may be targeted, what must be stated, and what follows if the motion is carried. The no-confidence motion is the sharpest of them: moved in the Lok Sabha under Rule 198 of its Rules of Procedure, requiring the support of at least fifty members for leave to be granted, stating no reasons, aimed at the Council of Ministers as a body, and obliging the Council to resign if it passes. The censure motion is narrower and softer — it must state a charge, it can name one minister, and a government that loses one is embarrassed but not unseated.

Three of these four statements are produced by swapping a feature between the two motions, so the item is really a single comparison in disguise. Fix the pair in memory as a set of opposites: no-confidence targets everybody and says nothing, censure targets anybody and must say why. Then statements (a), (b) and (d) all fall in one pass. The surviving statement rests on a constitutional provision rather than a rule of procedure, which is why it is the safest of the four to certify — Article 75(3) names the House of the People and no other, so the Rajya Sabha simply has no role. This is also why the Rajya Sabha cannot be dissolved and why a government's survival never depends on its arithmetic there. One caution when revising: Rule 198 belongs to the no-confidence motion; do not attach a rule number to the censure motion.

• Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People alone, so a no-confidence motion can be moved only in the Lok Sabha.
• A no-confidence motion is moved under Rule 198 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and needs the support of not fewer than fifty members for leave to be granted.
• A no-confidence motion states no grounds and lies against the whole Council of Ministers; if it is carried the Council must resign.
• A censure motion must state the specific charge, may be moved against an individual minister, a group of ministers or the Council, and does not compel resignation if carried.
• Neither motion is mentioned in the Constitution; both exist under rules made by each House under Article 118.

• Assuming a motion that names one minister must be a no-confidence motion; naming an individual is the mark of a censure motion.
• Thinking a no-confidence motion has to be argued in its text. It carries no reasons at all.
• Attaching Rule 198 to the censure motion. That rule governs the no-confidence motion.

As a statements item like this one, as a straight question on which House can move a no-confidence motion, or as a comparison asking which feature belongs to censure rather than to no-confidence.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A motion of no-confidence in India is moved against which one of the following?

  • (a)An individual minister
  • (b)The Council of Ministers as a whole
  • (c)The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
  • (d)A political party in the House

  Answer(b) The Council of Ministers as a whole — the motion enforces collective responsibility under Article 75(3), so it cannot be aimed at one minister.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following is a distinguishing feature of a censure motion in the Indian Parliament?

  • (a)It may be moved only in the Rajya Sabha
  • (b)It must state the specific charge on which it is based
  • (c)It compels the Council of Ministers to resign if carried
  • (d)It is expressly provided for in the Constitution

  Answer(b) It must state the specific charge on which it is based — unlike a no-confidence motion, which states no grounds at all.