Consider the following statements and choose the most valid argument: The Prime Minister of India, at the time of his/her appointment-

The correct answer is A. The Constitution does not say that the Prime Minister must be a member of Parliament at the time of appointment. Article 75(5) says that a minister who is not a member of either House for six consecutive months ceases to be a minister. The PM is a minister too, so the same six-month rule applies, and he or she must get into either House within that period.

Why the others fail:

• B adds a Lok Sabha restriction that does not exist. Manmohan Singh was a Rajya Sabha member when he became PM in 2004, and the Constitution allows membership of either House.
• C is wrong because membership is not required at the time of appointment, only within six months.
• D is wrong for the same reason as B, and also because the PM need not be a Lok Sabha member.

The core concept is the parliamentary principle that the executive is drawn from and answerable to the legislature (Articles 74 and 75), and Article 75(5) enforces that link. This connects to Mains questions on the Westminster model, responsible government, and why Rajya Sabha members sometimes lead the government.

Trap: Many aspirants assume the PM must be a Lok Sabha member because the government is answerable to that House. Remember that the Constitution requires membership of either House, and only within six months.