With reference to the ‘Joint Sitting of Parliament’, which of the following statements is/are correct ? 1. Article 109 of the Constitution of India provides for the Joint Sitting of Parliament. 2. A Joint Sitting of Parliament may be called to pass a Constitution Amendment Bill. Select the correct answer from the code given below : Code :
- (a)Both 1 and 2
- (b)Only 2
- (c)Neither 1 nor 2
- (d)Only 1
Correct — C, neither 1 nor 2. Both statements fail, and each fails on a point the Constitution settles in one line. Statement 1 misnames the Article. The joint sitting of the two Houses is provided for by Article 108, not Article 109; Article 109 lays down the special procedure in respect of Money Bills, under which the Rajya Sabha may only make recommendations and the Lok Sabha may accept or reject them. Article 108(1) lets the President notify an intention to summon a joint sitting when a Bill passed by one House and transmitted to the other is rejected by that other House, or the two Houses have finally disagreed on the amendments to be made, or more than six months elapse from the date the other House receives the Bill without its being passed — and the proviso to Article 108(1) expressly excludes Money Bills from the whole mechanism. Statement 2 fails because a Constitution Amendment Bill cannot go to a joint sitting either. Article 368 requires such a Bill to be passed in EACH House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. The words are 'in each House', so the two Houses cannot be pooled; if the Rajya Sabha refuses, the amendment simply dies. There is no provision anywhere in Part XX for breaking that deadlock. With both statements false, the code gives (c).
- (a)Both 1 and 2 — This accepts both errors at once. The Article number is wrong — joint sittings come from Article 108, while Article 109 is the special procedure for Money Bills — and the subject-matter is wrong too, because Article 368 requires a Constitution Amendment Bill to clear each House separately by a special majority, with no joint-sitting fallback.
- (b)Only 2 — Statement 2 is the one that is false. A joint sitting is confined to ordinary Bills (and, in practice, financial Bills that are not Money Bills). A Constitution Amendment Bill under Article 368 must be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House plus two-thirds of those present and voting, so a disagreement between the Houses cannot be resolved by putting them in one room.
- (d)Only 1 — Statement 1 is false because of the Article number. It is Article 108 that provides for the joint sitting; Article 109 deals with Money Bills, where no joint sitting is possible at all because the Lok Sabha's will prevails by itself. UPPSC used this exact bait once before — in 2023 it printed 'Article 109 provides for the joint sitting' as a statement and marked it wrong.
A joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament is the Constitution's device for breaking a legislative deadlock, and it lives in Article 108. When a Bill passed by one House is rejected by the other, or the Houses finally disagree over amendments, or the other House sits on the Bill for more than six months, the President may notify an intention to summon both Houses to meet together; at that sitting the Bill is decided by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting, which in practice means the numerically larger Lok Sabha carries the day. Two categories of Bill are kept out. Money Bills are excluded by the proviso to Article 108(1), because Article 109 already gives the Lok Sabha the last word on them. Constitution Amendment Bills are excluded because Article 368 demands passage in each House separately by a special majority, and offers no deadlock-breaking machinery at all.
This question is built out of two of the most reliable errors in Indian polity — a swapped Article number and an over-extended procedure — so the trick is to test each statement against the constitutional text rather than against a vague memory that 'joint sittings resolve deadlocks'. Fix the numbers as a block: Article 107 is the ordinary legislative procedure, Article 108 the joint sitting, Article 109 the special procedure for Money Bills, Article 110 the definition of a Money Bill, Article 111 the President's assent. Then remember what a joint sitting is FOR. It exists to let the Lok Sabha's numbers prevail over a resisting Rajya Sabha on ordinary law. That rationale collapses for a Money Bill, where the Lok Sabha already prevails without any joint sitting, and it is deliberately withheld for a Constitution Amendment Bill, where the framers wanted the Council of States to hold a real veto over changes to the Constitution itself. Once both statements are seen to be false, the code leaves only 'Neither 1 nor 2'.
- Article 108 provides for the joint sitting of the two Houses; Article 109 lays down the special procedure in respect of Money Bills, and the proviso to Article 108(1) expressly puts Money Bills outside the joint-sitting mechanism
- The three triggers under Article 108(1) are rejection of the Bill by the other House, final disagreement between the Houses over amendments, and the lapse of more than six months from the other House's receipt of the Bill without its being passed
- At a joint sitting the Bill is decided by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting — a simple majority, not any special majority
- Article 118(4) makes the Speaker of the Lok Sabha preside over a joint sitting; the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, who is the Vice-President, does not preside
- A Constitution Amendment Bill under Article 368 must be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than a two-thirds majority of the members of that House present and voting, so no joint sitting is available for it
- Only three joint sittings have ever been held — for the Dowry Prohibition Bill in 1961, the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill in 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 2002
- Swapping Article 108 and Article 109 — UPPSC has now used this bait twice, in 2023 and again here in 2025
- Assuming a joint sitting can rescue a Money Bill; it cannot, and it does not need to, because Article 109 already gives the Lok Sabha the final say
- Assuming the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha presides over a joint sitting because it involves both Houses — Article 118(4) gives the chair to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- Treating a Constitution Amendment Bill like an ordinary Bill; Article 368 requires a special majority in each House separately, so a Rajya Sabha refusal kills the amendment outright
UPPSC sets this as a two-statement item in which one statement carries a wrong Article number and the other over-extends the procedure, exactly as in 2023 and 2025; UPSC prefers to ask which category of Bill triggers a joint sitting (2012), what majority decides a Bill at a joint sitting (2015), or which Bills lapse on dissolution.
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
This is the present question with the disguise removed. UPSC lists ordinary legislation, Money Bill and Constitution Amendment Bill and asks which can go to a joint sitting; the answer, only ordinary legislation, is precisely why statement 2 here is false.
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
Fixes the other half — that it is Article 108, not 109, which sanctions the joint sitting — and adds the two earliest instances, the Dowry Prohibition Bill of 1961 and the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill of 1978.
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
The same bait, two years earlier. UPPSC printed 'Article 109 provides for the joint sitting' and marked it wrong, because the provision is Article 108. Statement 1 of the 2025 question is that discarded statement recycled almost word for word.
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
Answer(a) Ordinary Legislation
Asks directly which kind of deadlock a joint sitting can resolve, and answers 'ordinary legislation' — ruling out Money Bills, Appropriation Bills and Constitution Amendment Bills in one stroke.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Who presides over a joint sitting of the two Houses of the Indian Parliament?
- (a)The President of India
- (b)The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
- (c)The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- (d)The Prime Minister
Answer(c) The Speaker of the Lok Sabha — Article 118(4) places the Speaker in the chair at a joint sitting; the President only summons it, and the Rajya Sabha Chairman does not preside.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The third and most recent joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament, held in 2002, was summoned to pass which one of the following Bills?
- (a)The Dowry Prohibition Bill
- (b)The Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill
- (c)The Prevention of Terrorism Bill
- (d)The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill
Answer(c) The Prevention of Terrorism Bill — the 2002 joint sitting passed POTA; the 1961 sitting passed the Dowry Prohibition Bill and the 1978 sitting the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill.