Question Description
Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?1. The members can demand for the division of votes2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairmana)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1, 2 and 3d)Only 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.