Consider the following statements: 1) The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she think fit. 2) The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions. 3) There is no minimum number of days that the Parliament is required to meet in a year. Which of the statement given above is/are correct?

The correct answer is C. Statements 1 and 3 are right, and statement 2 is wrong.

Statement 1 is correct. Under Article 85(1), the President summons each House to meet at 'such time and place as he thinks fit', which in practice means on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. Statement 2 is wrong because the Constitution does not prescribe three sessions. Article 85(1) only says that six months must not elapse between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next. The three-session pattern (Budget, Monsoon, Winter) is a convention, so the Constitution effectively requires at least two sittings a year. Statement 3 is correct. Neither Article 85 nor any other provision fixes a minimum number of sitting days, which is why session length has been a recurring debate.

Core concept: summoning, prorogation and the six-month rule under Article 85, which keeps Parliament tied to regular accountability. Mains angle: the declining number of sitting days and its effect on legislative scrutiny, a frequent GS2 theme.

Trap: Statement 2 sounds right because three sessions are the normal practice. Aspirants forget that the Constitution itself only sets the six-month gap.