Which of the following is required under Article 108 of the Constitution of India to summon a joint sitting of the two houses of Parliament?
- (a)Intention of the President
- (b)Satisfaction of the President
- (c)Instruction of the President
- (d)Consent of the President
Correct — A, Intention of the President. Article 108(1) provides that if a Bill passed by one House is rejected by the other, or the Houses disagree on amendments, or six months pass without the other House acting on it, the President MAY notify to both Houses, by message, his INTENTION to summon them to meet in a joint sitting. It is this notified 'intention' — not a 'satisfaction', an 'instruction', or a 'consent' — that is the constitutional trigger.
- (b)Satisfaction of the President — Wrong term — 'satisfaction of the President' is the language used for other powers (e.g. Article 352 National Emergency, Article 356 President's Rule), not for summoning a joint sitting under Article 108.
- (c)Instruction of the President — Not the constitutional language — the President notifies an 'intention'; he does not 'instruct' the Houses to hold a joint sitting.
- (d)Consent of the President — Not the trigger under Article 108 — a joint sitting is triggered by the President notifying his intention, not by his consent to something the Houses propose.
Article 108 lets the President resolve a legislative deadlock between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on an ordinary Bill (not a Money Bill or a Constitution Amendment Bill) by summoning a joint sitting. The trigger is precisely worded: after a Bill is passed by one House and transmitted to the other, if it is rejected, or the Houses cannot agree on amendments, or more than six months pass without the other House passing it, the President notifies BOTH Houses, by message, his intention to summon a joint sitting. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha presides, and the matter is decided by a majority of the members of both Houses present and voting together.
The exam trap is the precise word: 'intention', not 'satisfaction' (the term used for Emergency-type powers) or 'consent'/'instruction' (not the constitutional terms used here at all). Also remember Article 108 does not apply to Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills — only ordinary legislation.
- Article 108 — deadlock-resolution mechanism between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, for ordinary Bills only
- Trigger: President notifies his 'intention' to summon a joint sitting, by message to both Houses
- Does NOT apply to Money Bills (Article 108 proviso) or Constitution Amendment Bills
- The Lok Sabha Speaker presides over the joint sitting; decided by majority of members of both Houses present & voting
It is the President's notified 'intention' — not his 'satisfaction', 'instruction', or 'consent' — that triggers a joint sitting under Article 108.
- Swapping 'intention' for 'satisfaction' / 'consent' / 'instruction' — each is a distinct constitutional term tied to a different presidential power
- Assuming Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills can go to a joint sitting — they cannot
Frequently a 'consider the statements' question mixing Article 108 with joint-sitting history/precedents, or a direct word-recall question like this one.
Consider the following statements: 1. The joint sitting of the two Houses of the Parliament in India is sanctioned under Article 108 of the Constitution. 2. The first joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha was held in the year 1961. 3. The second joint sitting of the two Houses of Indian Parliament was held to pass the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill. Which of these statements are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2
- (b) 2 and 3
- (c) 1 and 3
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(d) 1, 2 and 3 — Article 108 sanctions the joint sitting; the first was held in 1961 (Dowry Prohibition Bill) and the second in 1978 (Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill).
Same constitutional provision — Article 108's joint-sitting mechanism — tested there via its history/precedents, here via its triggering word.
MPPSC_2020_PRE_PaperI_Q732020Which of the following expression is appropriate regarding the message to call a joint sitting of both Houses under Article 108 of the Constitution of India?
- (a) Intention of President
- (b) Direction of President
- (c) Wisdom of President
- (d) Consent of President
Answer(a) Intention of President
Near-identical MPPSC repeat of this exact question — same Article 108 wording trap, asked one year (and one MPPSC cycle) earlier.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Who presides over a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament summoned under Article 108?
- (a)The President of India
- (b)The Vice-President of India
- (c)The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- (d)The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
Answer(c) The Speaker of the Lok Sabha presides over a joint sitting, under the Rules of Procedure for joint sittings.
- practice — not a real PYQ
A joint sitting under Article 108 CANNOT be summoned to resolve a deadlock over:
- (a)An ordinary Bill rejected by the Rajya Sabha
- (b)An ordinary Bill on which the two Houses disagree over amendments
- (c)A Money Bill
- (d)An ordinary Bill pending for over six months in the other House
Answer(c) A Money Bill — Article 108 explicitly excludes Money Bills; under Article 109, the Lok Sabha's decision on a Money Bill is final.