✅ Answer: (c) The lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case.

📝 Explanation:

🔹 What is the Writ of Prohibition?

✔️ The writ of prohibition is issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, ordering it to stop proceedings in a case where it is acting beyond its jurisdiction.

✔️ This writ is preventive in nature and aims to stop an illegal proceeding from continuing.

🔹 Key Features of Writ of Prohibition:

• ✅ Issued by higher courts (SC or HC) to lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies.
• ✅ Used before the final judgment is passed.
• ✅ Prevents an authority from exceeding its jurisdiction.
• ✅ Differs from Mandamus, which directs an authority to perform its duty, while Prohibition directs inactivity.

📌 Hence, the correct answer is (c) The lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case.

🚀 Elimination Strategy:

1️⃣ Option (a): A government officer prohibiting him from taking a particular action. ❌

• The writ is issued to judicial/quasi-judicial authorities, not to government officers.

2️⃣ Option (b): The Parliament/Legislative Assembly to pass a law on Prohibition. ❌

• The judiciary cannot prohibit the legislature from making laws.

3️⃣ Option (d): The Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy. ❌

• The writ of Prohibition applies only to judicial/quasi-judicial bodies, not to government policies.
• The correct writ to challenge unconstitutional government policies would be Mandamus or Certiorari.

📌 Thus, the correct answer is (c).

📚 Additional Information:

📖 Sources:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity (Chapter: Fundamental Rights)
• Indian Constitution (Articles 32 & 226)
• Judicial Precedents on Writs (Supreme Court & High Courts)

✅ Answer: (d) Article 21

📝 Explanation:

🔹 Right to Privacy under Article 21 ✅

✔️ In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

✔️ The judgment overruled two previous cases that had denied privacy as a fundamental right:

• M.P. Sharma Case (1958) – Held that the Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to privacy.
• Kharak Singh Case (1961) – Ruled that surveillance did not violate privacy as it was not explicitly recognized in the Constitution.

✔️ The Supreme Court stated that privacy is intrinsic to human dignity and personal liberty, making it an integral part of Article 21.

📌 Hence, the correct answer is (d) Article 21.

🚀 Elimination Strategy:

1️⃣ Article 15 – Deals with prohibition of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. ❌

2️⃣ Article 16 – Deals with equality of opportunity in public employment. ❌

3️⃣ Article 19 – Provides freedom of speech and expression, which is related to privacy but does not explicitly guarantee it. ❌

4️⃣ Article 21 – Ensures Right to Life and Personal Liberty, under which the Supreme Court placed Right to Privacy. ✅

📌 Thus, the correct answer is (d) Article 21.

📚 Additional Information:

📖 Sources:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity (Chapter: Fundamental Rights)
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) Judgment
• Constitution of India – Article 21

✅ Answer: (c) 2 and 3

📝 Explanation:

❌ Statement 1 is not correct:

• Under Article 85(2) of the Constitution, the President has the power to prorogue the Houses of Parliament, but this requires the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• The President acts as per the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers as per Article 74.

✅ Statement 2 is correct:

• Prorogation means terminating a session of Parliament.
• Usually, prorogation follows adjournment sine die (i.e., when a House is adjourned without fixing a date for its next meeting).
• However, the President can also prorogue the House while it is in session.

✅ Statement 3 is correct:

• Dissolution applies only to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha, since the latter is a permanent body that never dissolves.
• The President dissolves the Lok Sabha based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in exceptional circumstances where the President may explore alternative government formation if the sitting government loses its majority.

📚 Additional Information:

🔹 Prorogation vs. Adjournment vs. Dissolution:

🔹 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 1 is incorrect (Prorogation requires the advice of CoM) → Option (b) is eliminated.
• Statement 2 is correct → Option (a) is eliminated.
• Statement 3 is correct → Correct answer is (c) 2 and 3.

📖 Source:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity, Chapter on Parliament

✅ Answer: (a) 1 only

📝 Explanation:

✅ Statement 1 is correct:

• Article 96 of the Constitution states that when a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under consideration, he/she shall not preside over the House.
• However, he/she may be present in the House and participate in the proceedings.

❌ Statement 2 is not correct:

• The Speaker is not restricted from speaking in the House while the motion is under discussion.
• He/She can participate in debates and put forward arguments in their defense.

❌ Statement 3 is not correct:

• The Speaker can vote in the first instance but not in case of an equality of votes (i.e., not as a casting vote).
• This means the Speaker can express their opinion through voting, but they do not have a casting vote in case of a tie.

📚 Additional Information:

🔹 Process of Removal of the Speaker:

• The Speaker can be removed from office only by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha.
• 14 days’ prior notice must be given before moving the resolution.
• The Deputy Speaker presides over the House during this process.

🔹 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 1 is correct → Options (c) and (d) are eliminated.
• Statement 2 is incorrect (Speaker can speak) → Option (b) is eliminated.
• Correct answer is (a) 1 only.

📖 Source:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity, Chapter on Parliament

✅ Answer: (b) 1 and 2

📝 Explanation:

✅ Statement 1 is correct:

• When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all pending bills in Lok Sabha lapse, regardless of whether they originated in the Lok Sabha itself or were transmitted from the Rajya Sabha.
• This means that a fresh bill needs to be introduced in the newly constituted Lok Sabha if the government still intends to pass the legislation.

✅ Statement 2 is correct:

• If the Lok Sabha has passed a bill, but it is still pending in the Rajya Sabha, it also lapses when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.
• This is because the Rajya Sabha alone cannot complete the legislative process—a bill must be approved by both Houses to become law.

❌ Statement 3 is not correct:

• Exception: If a bill has been pending due to disagreement between both Houses, and the President has already notified a joint sitting before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, then it does not lapse.
• This is because a joint sitting is a constitutional mechanism under Article 108 that ensures legislative continuity.

📚 Additional Information:

🔹 Which Bills Lapse on the Dissolution of Lok Sabha?

✔ Bills introduced and pending in Lok Sabha.

✔ Bills passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha.

🔹 Which Bills DO NOT Lapse?

❌ A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not yet passed by the Lok Sabha.

❌ A bill passed by both Houses but pending Presidential assent.

❌ A bill returned by the President for reconsideration.

❌ A bill where the President has already notified a joint sitting before dissolution.

🔹 Significance of the Rule:

• Prevents unfinished legislative business from automatically carrying over to the next government, ensuring fresh debate and reconsideration.
• Prevents an outgoing government from influencing the legislative agenda of the newly elected Lok Sabha.

🔹 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 3 contradicts the rule that a joint sitting notification prevents lapse → Eliminate (c) and (d).
• Statements 1 and 2 are correct → Answer is (b).

📖 Source:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity, Chapter on Parliament

✅ Answer: (b) 2 only

📝 Explanation:

🔹 Article 112 of the Indian Constitution states that the President of India shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament the Annual Financial Statement (Budget).

❌ Statement 1 is not correct:

• The Finance Minister presents the Budget on behalf of the President, not the Prime Minister.
• The President is the constitutional authority for the Annual Financial Statement, while the Prime Minister has no direct role in its presentation.

✅ Statement 2 is correct:

• Article 113(3) of the Constitution states that no demand for a grant can be made in the Lok Sabha without the prior recommendation of the President.
• This ensures that no government expenditure is incurred without executive approval.

📚 Source:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity, Chapter on Parliament

🔎 Additional Information:

📌 Why does the Finance Minister present the Budget instead of the President?

• Though Article 112 states that the President causes the Budget to be laid, in practice, it is the Finance Minister who presents it in the Lok Sabha.
• This is because the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74.

📌 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 1 incorrectly attributes the Budget presentation to the Prime Minister → Eliminate (a) and (c).
• Only statement 2 remains correct, leading to the answer (b).

✅ Answer: (c) 1, 2 and 3

📝 Explanation:

🔹 Article 109 of the Constitution provides for the special procedure in respect of Money Bills.

• Hence, Statement 1 is correct.

🔹 Provisions of Article 109:

✅ Statement 2 is correct:

• A Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha, not in the Rajya Sabha.
• The Rajya Sabha has limited powers over Money Bills.

✅ Statement 3 is correct:

• Rajya Sabha can only suggest changes or approve a Money Bill but cannot reject it.
• It must return the Bill within 14 days, after which the Lok Sabha can accept or reject the recommendations.

❌ Statement 4 is not correct:

• The Lok Sabha is not bound to accept the Rajya Sabha’s amendments to a Money Bill.
• If the Lok Sabha rejects all amendments, the Money Bill is considered passed in its original form.

📚 Source:

• M. Laxmikanth – Indian Polity, Chapter on Parliament

🔎 Additional Information:

📌 What happens if Rajya Sabha does not return a Money Bill within 14 days?

• The Money Bill is considered passed in the same form as it was passed by the Lok Sabha.

📌 Can there be a joint sitting for a Money Bill?

• ❌ No, there is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement over a Money Bill.

📌 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 4 sounds absolute (“have to be accepted”), which is suspicious. Eliminating option (d) leads to the correct answer (c).

✅ Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only

📝 Explanation:

🔹 Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha – Background

• The idea of an Ethics Committee was first proposed in the Presiding Officers Conference (1996).
• The Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee was established on March 4, 1997, but the Lok Sabha did not constitute one immediately.
• In 2000, Speaker G M C Balayogi constituted an ad-hoc Ethics Committee in the Lok Sabha, which was made permanent only in 2015.
• The committee oversees moral and ethical conduct of MPs and examines cases of misconduct referred to it.

🔍 Statement-wise Analysis:

✅ Statement 1 is correct:

• The Ethics Committee in the Lok Sabha was initially ad-hoc before becoming a permanent committee in 2015.
• Thus, Statement 1 is correct.

❌ Statement 2 is not correct:

• Any person can file a complaint against an MP, but it must be submitted through another Lok Sabha MP with evidence and an affidavit stating that the complaint is not “false, frivolous, or vexatious.”
• If an MP files a complaint against another MP, no affidavit is required.
• Thus, Statement 2 is incorrect.

✅ Statement 3 is correct:

• The Ethics Committee does not take up matters that are sub-judice (i.e., already under judicial consideration).
• It also does not entertain complaints based solely on media reports.
• Thus, Statement 3 is correct.

📚 Source:

• Indian Express – LS Ethics Committee & Its Role 🔗 Read Here
• Lok Sabha Ethics Committee – Official Document 🔗 Read Here

🔎 Additional Information:

📌 Key Functions of the Ethics Committee:

• Enforces standards of ethical conduct among MPs.
• Investigates complaints of unethical behavior.
• Suggests punishment for misconduct.
• Cannot entertain sub-judice matters or complaints based only on media reports.

📌 Elimination Strategy:

• Statement 1 is a historical fact, so it is likely correct.
• Statement 2 is restrictive (“only a Member”), which is suspicious—rules generally allow broader complaint mechanisms.
• Statement 3 is logical since most committees avoid sub-judice matters.
• Thus, the correct answer is (c) 1 and 3 only.