Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India: (1) There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India. (2) A Motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

The correct answer is C, because both statements are true.

Statement 1 is correct. The Constitution never uses the phrase "no-confidence motion." What it does say, in Article 75(3), is that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People. The motion is a procedural device built on that responsibility and is governed by the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure (Rule 198 onwards).

Statement 2 is correct. Since the government is answerable to the Lok Sabha alone, only that House can move a motion of no-confidence against it. The Rajya Sabha can debate and criticise the government, but it cannot remove it. This is why the motion is tied to the Lower House.

Core concept: the parliamentary responsibility of the executive under Article 75(3), the basis of the Westminster model we adopted. For Mains, this links to debates on whether a directly elected House alone should decide government survival, and to the role of the Rajya Sabha in a bicameral system.

Trap: Aspirants often assume that because the Constitution does not name the motion, it has no constitutional basis. The motion rests on Article 75(3) even though the wording is absent. Also, do not confuse a no-confidence motion with a motion of censure, which can be moved in either House.