RAS question
Which of the following is the correct distinction between Prorogation and Adjournment of Parliament?
Correct answer: (C) Prorogation ends a session while Adjournment ends a sitting.
Prorogation terminates a session of the Lok Sabha, while adjournment only postpones a sitting or the proceedings of the House to another time.
Explanation
The key distinction is the level at which each parliamentary action operates. The Lok Sabha FAQ says adjournment is the postponement of a sitting or proceedings from one time to another fixed time for reassembly; it can be from day to day, for more than a day, or sine die. Prorogation is different: it terminates a session of the House by an order of the President under Article 85(2)(a), usually after the House has been adjourned sine die. Dissolution goes still further by ending the life of the Lok Sabha itself. Pending business does not lapse merely on adjournment, and bills and other pending business do not lapse on prorogation, but business pending before the House or its committees lapses on dissolution.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Adjournment and prorogation do not have the same effect: adjournment postpones a sitting, while prorogation terminates a session.
- (B) This reverses the distinction, because adjournment concerns a sitting or proceedings and prorogation concerns the session.
- (D) Prorogation does not dissolve the House; dissolution alone ends the life of the Lok Sabha.
Concept
This tests the parliamentary procedure distinction between a sitting, a session, and the life of the Lok Sabha. RAS repeatedly asks it because small procedural terms decide larger questions about pending business and legislative continuity.