Constitution Amendment Bill: Identifying the Incorrect Statement

This question asks to identify the statement that is not correct regarding a Constitution Amendment Bill in India. Let's analyze each statement based on Article 368 of the Constitution:

• Statement 1: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha can call a joint sitting of both the Houses to pass the Bill.
  • This statement is incorrect. Article 368(2) explicitly states that there shall be no joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses on a Constitution Amendment Bill.
• Statement 2: Each House needs to pass the Bill separately by a prescribed special majority.
  • This statement is correct. According to Article 368(2), the bill must be passed by each House separately by a special majority, defined as more than 50% of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• Statement 3: The Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament.
  • This statement is correct. A Constitution Amendment Bill can be introduced in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
• Statement 4: The Bill can be sponsored by a Private Member.
  • This statement is correct. Unlike Money Bills, a Constitution Amendment Bill can be introduced by any Member of Parliament, whether a Minister or a Private Member.

Conclusion on Constitution Amendment Bills

Based on the analysis, the only statement that does not align with the procedure for passing a Constitution Amendment Bill is the one suggesting a joint sitting can be called. Therefore, the incorrect statement is that the Speaker can call a joint sitting.