UPPCS Prelims 2025 · GS Paper I: With reference to the 'Joint Sitting of Parliament', which of the following statements is/are…
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:
Answer (c) & explanation
Option (c), neither 1 nor 2, is correct. Statement 1 is wrong: the joint sitting of Parliament is under Article 108, not Article 109. Article 109 lays down the special procedure for Money Bills. The President calls a joint sitting to resolve a deadlock on an ordinary bill when one House rejects it, the Houses disagree on amendments, or more than six months pass without it being passed. The Speaker presides. Statement 2 is wrong: no joint sitting can be held for a Constitution Amendment Bill (each House must pass it separately by a special majority) or for a Money Bill. Concept: only three joint sittings have been held, for the Dowry Prohibition Act (1961), the Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill (1978) and POTA (2002). Trap: Article 108, not 109.
Article 109 is about Money Bills; joint sittings are Article 108, and never for amendments.
Question and answer as printed in UPPSC's official question booklet with answers (provisional key, published for objections). We will update if the final key differs. Source: uppsc.up.nic.in
Learn the concept
Same theme in UPPCS Mains
- MAINS UPPCS Mains 2023 · GS Paper II · Section A · Q2Why the 42nd Amendment is called a revision of the Indian Constitution ?
- MAINS UPPCS Mains 2023 · GS Paper II · Section A · Q1Why the Preamble is called the Philosophy of the Indian Constitution ?
- MAINS UPPCS Mains 2024 · GS Paper VI · Section B · Q16Explain the problems and prospects for cultivation of flowers with reference to Uttar Pradesh.
Same theme in UPSC Mains
- MAINS UPSC Mains 2026 · GS Paper II · Q1Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine…
- MAINS UPSC Mains 2025 · GS Paper II · Q12Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and…
- MAINS UPSC Mains 2026 · GS Paper I · Q20Evaluate the impact of globalization on Indian youths with reference to social, political, economic and cultural spheres.
Related questions from other years
Mr. X, a senior officer, was overseeing a critical vaccination programme during a pandemic. He found that a private service provider responsible for vaccine distribution was compromising on quality to make profits. Despite immense pressure to manage the issue due to vested interests, he raised his voice based on the principles of public administration which he learnt during various training programmes attended across his career. He reported the issue to the appropriate vigilance authority and halted the contract to ensure citizen welfare.
Which one among the following principles of public administration was most strongly demonstrated by Mr. X's actions ?
Answer (c) & explanation
Accountability is shown (c). Mr. X treated himself as answerable to the public for the money spent and for citizens' health. He did not hide the problem: he reported the provider to the vigilance authority and halted the faulty contract, owning the result of his office. Option (a) is wrong: esprit de corps is team spirit and loyalty within a group. Option (b) is wrong: equity means fairness between groups of people. Option (d) is wrong: delegation is passing work down to juniors. None of these fits his action.
Notice the wider idea: accountability has two parts, answerability (explaining your decisions) and enforceability (facing consequences). Tools like the CVC, the RTI Act and social audits make it real in Indian administration.
a case study with four textbook terms. Name what the officer actually did, then match the word.
UPSC repeats traps like this year after year. The PYQ Book gathers every trap in one place, so you see them coming. Try the free sample
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
In a multi-ethnic district where both economic competition and historical grievances frequently led to community tensions, a flashpoint has arisen with a Government decision to allocate land for a waste management facility near a tribal hamlet, sparking protests by the tribal community, which claimed that the land was sacred and critical to their cultural identity. At the same time, urban residents and local industries supported the project, citing severe solid waste challenges and health concerns due to lack of a proper disposal site. The conflict has escalated with road blockades, social media campaigns, and allegations of police excesses.
As a responsible Government official, you are tasked with resolving the situation through mediation, ensuring a sustainable outcome that balances environmental needs, tribal rights, and urban public health.
Consider the following statements with reference to the above :
- 1. A successful conflict resolution process must begin with acknowledging the cultural concerns of the protesting tribal community before discussing technical alternatives.
- 2. The Government should move ahead with the project without delay to address urban health concerns, which outweigh the sentiments of a small group.
- 3. Creating a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform — including tribal leaders, environmental experts, and municipal representatives — to build mutual understanding and help de-escalate tensions.
- 4. Conducting an independent Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and sharing findings transparently with both sides to facilitate evidence-based decision-making.
Which of the statements given above would contribute to the resolution process ?
Answer (a) & explanation
Statements 1, 3 and 4 help resolve the conflict (a). The task is mediation. Statement 1 is right: acknowledging the tribal community's cultural concerns first builds trust before any technical talk. Statement 3 is right: a multi-stakeholder platform of tribal leaders, experts and municipal officials brings all sides to one table and lowers tension. Statement 4 is right: an independent ESIA, shared openly, allows evidence-based decisions. Statement 2 is wrong: pushing the project through and calling a community's concern "sentiments of a small group" ends dialogue. So options (b), (c) and (d) fail.
Notice the legal backdrop: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and PESA, 1996 give Gram Sabhas a say over land and sacred sites, as the Niyamgiri case (2013) showed.
one option that sounds firm and practical. In a mediation question, anything that shuts out one party is out.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
'X' was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term 'law' as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. 'X' explained that the meaning of the term 'law' in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. 'Y' pointed out that the term 'law' in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which 'X' was not convinced.
Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below :
Answer (d) & explanation
Only Y's view is correct (d). Article 13(3)(a) defines "law" to include any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, and custom or usage having the force of law in India. So Y is right that custom is included. Option (a) is wrong: X rejected custom, so his view as a whole fails. Option (b) is wrong: Y's view matches the text. Option (c) is wrong: X's view is not fully correct.
Notice why it matters: Article 13 makes any law, including a custom, void if it violates Fundamental Rights. This is the root of judicial review in India. Courts have struck down discriminatory customs on this basis. Whether personal laws are "law" under Article 13 is still debated.
option (c) tempts you because X's first half is true. UPSC judges the whole view, and X's refusal on custom makes it wrong.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Ms. X is a mid-level civil service official working in the urban development department of a major city. Recently, she was involved in approving a contract for a public infrastructure project — a new community park. During the approval process, she received a piece of confidential information indicating that one of the shortlisted contractors had a history of poor workmanship and allegations of corruption in other cities, though nothing had been legally proven. The Head of the Department, Mr. Y, advised her not to disclose this information to the project committee or the public because it could delay the project and damage the city's reputation. However, Ms. X believed that withholding such information compromised transparency and public trust.
What amongst the following should Ms. X do now ?
- 1. Immediately disclose the information to the project committee and the public
- 2. Recommend removing the contractor from the shortlist to protect the project's integrity
- 3. Propose a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the information confidential from the public for the time being
Select the answer using the code given below :
Answer (b) & explanation
Only action 3 is right (b). The information is confidential and the charges are not proven. Action 3 is right: a limited disclosure to an oversight committee lets the proper authority check the facts while protecting both the process and a firm that may be innocent. Action 1 is wrong: making unproven charges public at once can damage reputations unfairly and break confidentiality. Action 2 is wrong: striking the contractor off on her own punishes without a finding. So options (a), (c) and (d) fail.
Notice the balance being tested: transparency versus due process. Ms. X also rightly refuses her senior's advice to hide the matter, because silence would hurt public trust. Ethics answers usually favour the proper channel over both cover-up and public exposure.
"unproven allegation" is the key phrase. Public disclosure and instant punishment both jump ahead of the facts.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.