Joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can take place to resolve deadlock over
- (a)Ordinary Legislation
- (b)Money Bill
- (c)Constitutional Amendment Bill
- (d)Appropriation Bill
Correct — A, Ordinary Legislation. Article 108 empowers the President to summon a joint sitting of the two Houses to break a deadlock, but ONLY over an ordinary Bill — one that has been passed by one House and rejected by the other, or on which the Houses have finally disagreed over amendments, or which has lain with the other House for more than six months. At the joint sitting (presided over by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha), the Bill is decided by a simple majority of members present and voting. Because the Lok Sabha is the larger House, its will usually prevails. Only three joint sittings have ever been held: the Dowry Prohibition Bill (1961), the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill (1978) and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill/POTA (2002) — all ordinary legislation.
- (b)Money Bill — Wrong — a Money Bill is governed by Article 109. The Rajya Sabha can only recommend changes and must return it within 14 days; the Lok Sabha may accept or reject those recommendations, so there is no deadlock to resolve and hence no joint sitting.
- (c)Constitutional Amendment Bill — Wrong — a Constitution Amendment Bill under Article 368 must be passed by EACH House separately by the prescribed special majority. Article 368 makes no provision for a joint sitting, so a deadlock cannot be broken this way.
- (d)Appropriation Bill — Wrong — an Appropriation Bill is a Money Bill (Article 114), so it follows the Article 109 route where the Lok Sabha prevails; a joint sitting does not apply to it.
Article 108 of the Constitution provides the joint-sitting mechanism to resolve a legislative deadlock between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha over an ordinary Bill. The joint sitting is summoned by the President, presided over by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Bill is passed by a simple majority of those present and voting. Money Bills (Art. 109) and Constitution Amendment Bills (Art. 368) are deliberately excluded from this mechanism.
The trap is thinking every inter-House disagreement can go to a joint sitting. Sort by Bill type: Money/Appropriation Bills → Article 109 (Lok Sabha dominant, no joint sitting); Constitution Amendment Bills → Article 368 (special majority in each House, no joint sitting); only ORDINARY Bills → Article 108 joint sitting. That leaves (a).
- Article 108 — joint sitting for ordinary Bills; summoned by the President
- Presided over by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha; decided by simple majority of members present and voting
- Money Bills → Article 109; Constitution Amendment Bills → Article 368 — no joint sitting for either
- Only three joint sittings held: Dowry Prohibition (1961), Banking Service Commission Repeal (1978), POTA (2002)
- Assuming Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills can go to a joint sitting — they cannot
- Forgetting that the Speaker (not the Vice-President/Rajya Sabha Chairman) presides over a joint sitting
UPPSC/UPSC ask which Bills qualify for a joint sitting, who presides, the majority required, and the historical instances — often as a statements-based or single-best-answer item.
A deadlock between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha calls for a joint sitting of the Parliament during the passage of 1. Ordinary Legislation 2. Money Bill 3. Constitution Amendment Bill
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(a) 1 only
Same concept, near-identical wording — a joint sitting resolves a deadlock only over ordinary legislation, not Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills.
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
Same concept — confirms the Article 108 basis and the historical instances (1961 first joint sitting; Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill the second).
With reference to the joint sitting of Parliament, which statement/s is/are correct? (1) Article 109 provides for the joint sitting of both Houses in certain cases. (2) The Speaker presides the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. Select the correct answer using the code given below - Code -
- (a) Only 1
- (b) Both 1 and 2
- (c) Neither 1 nor 2
- (d) Only 2
Answer(d) Only 2
Same concept from UPPSC 2023 — it tests that the joint sitting is under Article 108 (not 109) and is presided over by the Speaker, reinforcing the mechanism this 2020 question asks about.
- practice — not a real PYQ
A joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament under Article 108 is presided over by
- (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 — the Rajya Sabha Chairman does not preside.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which of the following Bills was passed at a joint sitting of Parliament?
- (a)The Hindu Code Bill
- (b)The Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1961
- (c)The GST Constitution Amendment Bill
- (d)The Finance Bill, 2002
Answer(b) The Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1961 — the first-ever joint sitting.