Consider the following statements: I. The Parliament (Prevention of disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts several posts from disqualification on the grounds of ‘Office of Profit’. II. The above-mentioned Act was amended five times. III. The term ‘Office of Profit’ is well-defined in the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

The correct answer is A, that is statements 1 and 2 only.

• Statement 1 is correct. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 lists offices that do not attract disqualification under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), even though they may carry a profit.
• Statement 2 is correct. The Act has been amended several times over the years. The most significant amendment came in 2006, after the Jaya Bachchan case, when a large number of offices were exempted with retrospective effect.
• Statement 3 is wrong. The Constitution uses the phrase 'office of profit' in Articles 102 and 191 but never defines it. Courts have instead developed tests, such as whether the government controls the appointment, removal, salary and functions of the post.

The core concept is legislative disqualification and the balance between keeping legislators independent of the executive and allowing reasonable public roles. This connects to Polity and to Mains questions on conflict of interest and the role of Parliament in deciding which posts disqualify.

Trap: Because the phrase appears in the Constitution, many aspirants assume it is defined there. It is not.