Parliamentary Devices: Question Hour, Zero Hour and Motions

The correct answer is B, the first hour of the sitting. Question Hour is the first hour of every sitting of each House, normally from 11 a.m. to 12 noon, and it is set out in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. During this hour members put questions to ministers on matters of public administration within their charge, and the minister is bound to reply. A, the last hour, is wrong because the last part of a sitting is given to the listed legislative or financial business, not to questions. C is wrong because the hour after Question Hour is Zero Hour, and the business after the recess is whatever the day's list carries; no device is tied to the lunch recess. D is wrong because no hour is reserved for questions before adjournment; once Question Hour is over, questions can be taken only through a short notice question that the Speaker specially admits.

The correct answer is C, 1962. Zero Hour is an Indian innovation in parliamentary procedure and has been in use since 1962. It begins immediately after Question Hour, at about 12 noon, and lasts until the listed business of the day is taken up, and it allows a member to raise a matter without the prior notice that every other device requires. Its most examined feature is that it is nowhere mentioned in the Rules of Procedure, which makes it an informal device. A, 1952, is wrong because that year marks the first sitting of the Parliament elected under the Constitution, not the start of Zero Hour. B, 1954, is wrong because that is the year from which the calling attention motion, another Indian innovation, has been in use. D, 1977, is wrong; no parliamentary device of this kind dates from that year.

The correct answer is B, it is answered orally and supplementary questions are allowed. A starred question is distinguished by an asterisk, is answered on the floor of the House by the minister, and because the answer is oral, members may follow it with supplementary questions. The daily limit is twenty starred questions in the Lok Sabha. A is wrong because a written answer with no supplementaries describes an unstarred question, whose daily limit in the Lok Sabha is two hundred and thirty. C is wrong because a question to a private member is a separate category, admitted only when the subject is a Bill or a matter for which that member is responsible. D is wrong because the requirement of fifty members' support belongs to the adjournment motion and the no-confidence motion, not to any kind of question.

The correct answer is C, 20. The rules permit a maximum of twenty starred questions to be listed for oral answer in the Lok Sabha on any one day, and the ballot decides which members' questions get a place. B, 15, is wrong for the Lok Sabha, though it is the corresponding limit in the Rajya Sabha, which makes it the commonest trap in this question. D, 230, is wrong because that is the maximum number of unstarred questions, answered in writing, that may be listed in the Lok Sabha in a day; the Rajya Sabha limit for unstarred questions is one hundred and sixty. A, 10, is wrong as a limit, but ten clear days is the ordinary notice period for a question, and candidates often confuse the notice period with the daily ceiling.

The correct answer is A, the Lok Sabha only. The adjournment motion is admitted in the Lok Sabha alone, because it carries an element of censure against the government and only the Lok Sabha can censure the Council of Ministers under the collective responsibility laid down in Article 75. It draws the attention of the House to a definite matter of urgent public importance, needs the support of fifty members, and once admitted the discussion on it must last at least two hours and thirty minutes. B is wrong because the Rajya Sabha has no adjournment motion at all; a member there raises such a matter through a special mention or a calling attention notice. C is wrong for the same reason. D is wrong because a joint sitting is summoned under Article 108 only to resolve a deadlock over a Bill, and no motion of this kind is taken there.

The correct answer is C, two hours and thirty minutes. The rules provide that once the Speaker admits an adjournment motion, the House must give it not less than two hours and thirty minutes of discussion, so that a matter grave enough to set aside the listed business is actually examined. A, one hour, is wrong, though it may be confused with the half-an-hour discussion, which is a different device altogether and lasts thirty minutes. B, two hours, is wrong, but it is the trap in this question: the short duration discussion under Rule 193 is popularly called the two-hour discussion, and candidates transfer its length to the adjournment motion. D, three hours, is wrong; no rule fixes a three-hour minimum for any of these devices. In practice the Speaker takes up an admitted adjournment motion at four in the afternoon, after the day's listed business, and the discussion ends in a vote.

The correct answer is C, Rule 198. A no-confidence motion against the Council of Ministers is moved in the Lok Sabha under Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha. It needs the support of fifty members for admission, states no reasons, and if it is carried the whole Council of Ministers must resign, because Article 75 makes the Council collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. A, Rule 176, is wrong for the Lok Sabha; it is the Rajya Sabha rule for a short duration discussion. B, Rule 193, is wrong because that is the Lok Sabha rule for a short duration discussion, where no formal motion is moved and no vote is taken. D, Rule 377, is wrong because a mention under Rule 377 is the Lok Sabha device for raising a matter that fits under no other rule.

The correct answer is A, Acharya J. B. Kripalani. The first no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha after independence was moved in August 1963 by Acharya J. B. Kripalani against the government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, in the atmosphere that followed the war of 1962, and the motion was defeated. B is wrong because Ram Manohar Lohia, though one of the sharpest critics of the government in that period, did not move the first such motion. C is wrong because Atal Bihari Vajpayee entered the Lok Sabha later and is remembered for a government that fell on a confidence motion in 1999, which is a different device moved by the government itself. D is wrong because C. Rajagopalachari was never a member of the Lok Sabha; he had been Governor-General and later founded the Swatantra Party outside Parliament.

The correct answer is B, it must state the reasons on which it is based. A censure motion has to set out the specific charge against the minister or ministers it names, whereas a no-confidence motion need state no ground whatever. A censure motion may be directed against an individual minister, a group of ministers or the whole Council of Ministers. A is wrong because a censure motion, like a no-confidence motion, is moved in the Lok Sabha only. C is wrong because no minimum of one hundred members is prescribed anywhere; the figure to remember is fifty, and it applies to the adjournment motion and the no-confidence motion. D is wrong, and it is the key difference in the other direction: the passing of a censure motion does not oblige the Council of Ministers to resign, while the passing of a no-confidence motion does.

The correct answer is B, 1954. The calling attention motion is an Indian innovation in parliamentary procedure and has been in use since 1954. A member calls the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance and the minister makes a statement on it, after which members may seek clarifications. Unlike Zero Hour, it is mentioned in the Rules of Procedure, which makes it a formal device. A, 1950, is wrong; the Constitution came into force that year but this device came later. C, 1962, is wrong because that is the year from which Zero Hour has been in use, and the two Indian innovations are routinely swapped in the options. D, 1971, is wrong; no device of this kind dates from that year, though the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment belongs to it.

The correct answer is A, a policy cut. A policy cut motion asks that the amount of the demand be reduced to one rupee, which amounts to a complete rejection of the policy underlying the demand, and the member who moves it may propose an alternative policy. B, an economy cut, is wrong because it asks for the demand to be reduced by a specified amount, representing the economy that can be effected without disowning the policy. C, a token cut, is wrong because it asks for a reduction of exactly one hundred rupees and is moved only to air a specific grievance within the sphere of the Government of India. D, the guillotine, is wrong because it is not a cut motion at all: it is the device by which the Speaker, when the time allotted to the demands for grants expires, puts all the outstanding demands to the vote together, discussed or not.

The correct answer is B, one-tenth of the total number of members of the House. Article 100(3) of the Constitution lays down that the quorum to constitute a sitting of either House shall be one-tenth of the total number of members of that House, and the presiding officer is counted in that one-tenth. If there is no quorum, it is the duty of the presiding officer to adjourn the House or suspend the sitting until there is a quorum. A, one-fourth, and C, one-third, are wrong because no provision fixes the quorum at either fraction; one-third is associated with other matters, such as the strength of the Rajya Sabha retiring every second year. D, fifty members, is wrong because fifty is the support needed to admit an adjournment motion or a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, not the quorum of a sitting.