Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) 2016 recruitment test, advertisement 170. Transcribed from the Commission's own booklet (series A, B-CRHE-O-PAPA); answer as per the official UPSC final answer key. This question is in Part B. Answer last reviewed 24 August 2026.

If the Prime Minister of India is a member of the Rajya Sabha

(a)He can make statements only in the Rajya Sabha
(b)He has to become a member of the Lok Sabha within six months
(c)He will not be able to speak on the budget in the Lok Sabha
(d)He will not be able to vote in his favour in the event of a no-confidence motion

Answer

Why

Correct — D, (d) He will not be able to vote in his favour in the event of a no-confidence motion.

Two provisions decide this item, and they pull in different directions on purpose.

ARTICLE 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE — the Lok Sabha alone. A motion of no confidence is the instrument by which that responsibility is enforced, and it is therefore moved, debated and voted only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha, being a permanent House that is not dissolved and that does not make or unmake governments, cannot entertain one at all.

ARTICLE 88 gives every Minister and the Attorney-General the right to SPEAK in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member — but it adds expressly that he shall not by virtue of that article be entitled to VOTE. A Minister votes only in the House of which he is a member.

Put the two together. A Prime Minister who sits in the Rajya Sabha may go to the Lok Sabha when the no-confidence motion against his own Government is taken up; he may speak in the debate, and reply to it; but when the House divides he has no vote there, because he is not a member of it. He cannot vote in his own favour. That is option (d), and it is the only one of the four that survives Article 88.

This is not a hypothetical arrangement. Indira Gandhi was a member of the Rajya Sabha when she became Prime Minister in January 1966, and Manmohan Singh sat in the Rajya Sabha throughout his tenure as Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014. In each case the Government's majority in the Lok Sabha was what sustained it, and the Prime Minister's own vote was not part of that majority.

The stem is printed as an unfinished conditional clause with no punctuation, and each option completes it.

Why the others are wrong

(a)He can make statements only in the Rajya Sabha — This is the opposite of what Article 88 provides. The Article gives every Minister the right to speak in, and to take part in the proceedings of, EITHER House, and of any joint sitting or committee of which he is named a member. A Prime Minister sitting in the Rajya Sabha therefore addresses the Lok Sabha as a matter of constitutional right, not by leave. What Article 88 withholds is the vote, not the voice — and the option reverses exactly that distinction. It is on the page for a candidate who half-remembers that something is denied to a Minister in the other House and picks the wrong thing.
(b)He has to become a member of the Lok Sabha within six months — There is no such requirement. Article 75(5) provides that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of EITHER House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister. The six-month rule therefore applies to a Minister who is a member of NEITHER House, and it is satisfied by membership of either one. A Prime Minister who is already a member of the Rajya Sabha has complied with it and is under no obligation to seek a Lok Sabha seat at any time. This is the most commonly misremembered provision in the whole area, because the six-month figure is right and the House named is not.
(c)He will not be able to speak on the budget in the Lok Sabha — Wrong for the same reason as option (a), and specific enough to look authoritative. Article 88 lets a Minister speak in either House on any business before it, and the Budget is business before the Lok Sabha in a particularly strong sense: a Money Bill can be introduced only there, and the Rajya Sabha may only recommend amendments to it, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject. So the House the option says the Prime Minister is shut out of is the very House where the Budget is decided, and it is precisely there that Article 88 secures him the right to be heard. What he could not do is vote on the Demands for Grants.

Concept

The item sits on the distinction between MEMBERSHIP of a House and MINISTERIAL OFFICE, which the Constitution keeps deliberately separate.

WHAT MINISTERIAL OFFICE CARRIES. Under Article 88, the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting and any committee of which the Minister is named a member. This is what allows a government to answer to both Houses whatever its Ministers' individual seats.

WHAT ONLY MEMBERSHIP CARRIES. The vote. Article 88 says so in terms, and the rule has no exception for the Prime Minister.

WHAT MEMBERSHIP IS REQUIRED. Article 75(5): a Minister must be a member of either House within six consecutive months of appointment, failing which he ceases to be a Minister. The Constitution does not say which House, and it does not require the Prime Minister to sit in the Lok Sabha.

WHERE RESPONSIBILITY LIES. Article 75(3): the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. That single sentence is the reason the no-confidence motion is a Lok Sabha instrument, the reason a Government falls when it loses a vote there and not when it loses one in the Rajya Sabha, and the reason the Lok Sabha's composition and not the Rajya Sabha's decides who governs.

THE ASYMMETRY OF THE TWO HOUSES more generally: the Lok Sabha is directly elected and dissolvable and controls the life of the Government and the purse; the Rajya Sabha is indirectly elected, permanent, not subject to dissolution, and has special powers of its own under Articles 249 and 312. A no-confidence motion is moved under the Lok Sabha's own Rules of Procedure and requires the support of a stated minimum number of members before the Speaker will admit it, after which it is taken up and voted on.

The practical consequence, and the point of the question, is that a Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha governs with full authority but cannot personally cast a vote in the House that can remove him.

This is a well-designed polity item because every wrong option is a real provision misapplied rather than an invention. Option (b) uses the genuine six-month rule and names the wrong House; options (a) and (c) both take the genuine restriction in Article 88 and attach it to speech instead of to the vote. A candidate who has read Articles 75 and 88 answers it at once; a candidate who has absorbed the general shape of the rules without the text has four plausible sentences on the page.

The stem's construction is worth noticing too. It is a conditional clause left hanging — 'If the Prime Minister of India is a member of the Rajya Sabha' — with no terminal punctuation of any kind, and the four options complete the sentence. Several items on this paper are set that way, and the effect is that each option must be read as a complete proposition rather than as a label.

The area matters beyond the examination hall for anyone who will work inside the Union government. Which House a Minister answers in, where the Budget is decided, and what a no-confidence motion actually tests are the basic mechanics of accountability that every executive decision ultimately runs back to.

Key facts

Article 75(3): the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People, so a no-confidence motion lies only in the Lok Sabha.
Article 88: a Minister may speak in and take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting and any committee of which he is named a member, but is not entitled by that Article to vote.
A Minister votes only in the House of which he is a member, and there is no exception for the Prime Minister.
Article 75(5): a Minister who for six consecutive months is not a member of EITHER House ceases to be a Minister; the rule does not require membership of the Lok Sabha.
Indira Gandhi was a member of the Rajya Sabha when she became Prime Minister in January 1966, and Manmohan Singh sat in the Rajya Sabha throughout his premiership from 2004 to 2014.
A Money Bill can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha; the Rajya Sabha may recommend amendments, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.
The Rajya Sabha is a permanent House not subject to dissolution and cannot entertain a no-confidence motion.

Study next

Articles 74, 75 and 88 — the Council of Ministers, collective and individual responsibility, and the rights of a Minister in Parliament.Differences in powers between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, including Money Bills, Demands for Grants and the special powers of the Rajya Sabha under Articles 249 and 312.Parliamentary devices of accountability: no-confidence motion, censure motion, adjournment motion, cut motions and the question hour.The legislative process for Money Bills and Financial Bills, and the Speaker's certificate under Article 110.Joint sittings under Article 108 — when they are convened and how the numbers work.

Common traps

Thinking a Minister may speak only in his own House. Article 88 gives the right to speak in either House; what it withholds is the vote.
Misremembering Article 75(5) as requiring a Lok Sabha seat within six months. It requires membership of either House, which a Rajya Sabha member already has.
Assuming a no-confidence motion can be moved in the Rajya Sabha. Collective responsibility under Article 75(3) runs to the Lok Sabha alone.
Treating the Prime Minister as an exception to the voting rule because of the office. The Constitution makes no such exception.

Parliament items on EPFO papers are asked as short propositions to be judged true or false against the text of an Article, and the option sets are built out of neighbouring provisions rather than out of invented ones. Expect the six-month rule, the right to speak in either House, collective responsibility, Money Bill procedure and the Speaker's powers to recur. The way to prepare is to carry the actual wording of the short Articles — 75, 88, 108, 110 — because the wrong options in this family are almost always produced by changing one word of a real provision: 'either House' becomes 'the House of the People', 'vote' becomes 'speak'. Reading the option against the remembered text catches that immediately.

Related PYQs

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q120

Statement (I) : Speaker of the Lok Sabha appoints the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Statement (II) : Members of Parliament, eminent persons from industry and trade are the members of the Public Accounts Committee.

(a) Both Statement (I) and Statement (II) are individually true and Statement (II) is the correct explanation of Statement (I)
(b) Both Statement (I) and Statement (II) are individually true but Statement (II) is not the correct explanation of Statement (I)
(c) Statement (I) is true but Statement (II) is false
(d) Statement (I) is false but Statement (II) is true

Answer(c) Statement (I) is true but Statement (II) is false

The Assertion-Reason item on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha appointing the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee — the same territory of parliamentary office and procedure, again turning on the exact rule rather than on general impression.

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q38

Under the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct ? 1. The Constitution is supreme. 2. There is a clear division of powers between the Union and the State Governments. 3. Amendments to the Constitution have to follow the prescribed procedure. 4. The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures are sovereign. 5. The Preamble to the Constitution cannot be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental Rights. Select the correct answer using the codes given below :

(a) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
(b) 2, 3 and 4 only
(c) 1, 4 and 5 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3 only

Answer(d) 1, 2 and 3 only

The statement list on the Constitution, where the sovereignty of Parliament has to be rejected — the same limitation on legislative and ministerial power that decides this item.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
A Minister who is not a member of either House of Parliament ceases to hold office at the end of
- (a)three consecutive months
- (b)six consecutive months
- (c)one year
- (d)the session in which he was appointed
Answer(b) six consecutive months — Article 75(5) provides that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of either House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister. Membership of either House satisfies the requirement; the Constitution does not specify which.
practice — not a real PYQ
A motion of no confidence against the Council of Ministers can be moved in
- (a)the Rajya Sabha only
- (b)the Lok Sabha only
- (c)either House of Parliament
- (d)a joint sitting of both Houses
Answer(b) the Lok Sabha only — Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People, and the no-confidence motion is the instrument by which that responsibility is enforced. The Rajya Sabha, which is not subject to dissolution and does not sustain the Government, cannot entertain such a motion.

Why