send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In light of recent debates regarding the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 is an ordinary bill under Article 107 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Council of States has the power to reject The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, and the consequent deadlock can be resolved by convening a joint sitting of the Houses.
3. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 required the recommendation of President for introduction as it is the primary duty of the Union to protect the fundamental right to equality of women.
4. On the ground of prolonged pendency of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 in the Council of States, it may not be practically possible for the President to convene a joint sitting of the houses under Article 108.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
2, 3 and 4 only
1, 3 and 4 only
1, 2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 4 only
This instant bill does not require the recommendation of the President as it is neither a money bill nor a financial bill. The President’s recommendation is required only in case of a bill having financial implication under Article 3 and Article 304 B. . Statement No. 4 is correct as only over a year is left for the completion of the tenure of the 16th Lok Sabha. If joint sitting is to be convened due to prolonged pendency, the constitutionally specified requirement is that the bill shall be pending for 180 parliamentary days in the House where it is pending. As Council of States does not sit for more than 80-85 days a year, it will not be possible to have the condition fulfilled during the current term of House of the People.
By: abhimanu admin ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses