Consider the following statements: 1. The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks 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 statements given above is/are correct?

Answer: C. Statements 1 and 3 are correct; Statement 2 is wrong. Statement 1 is CORRECT. Under ARTICLE 85 of the Constitution, the PRESIDENT 'shall from time to time SUMMON each House of Parliament to meet at such time and PLACE as he thinks fit'. The President's power to summon sessions of Parliament extends to the place of meeting. While in practice the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74), the constitutional power formally vests in the President. Historically Parliament has met only in New Delhi, but the textual power covers 'such place' as the President considers appropriate. Statement 2 is WRONG. The Constitution does NOT 'PROVIDE FOR three sessions per year'. Article 85 imposes a different constraint: 'the maximum interval between two sessions shall not be more than SIX MONTHS' (six months between the end of one session and the commencement of the next). This implicitly requires at least TWO sessions per year (one before and one after the six-month gap). In practice, Parliament conducts THREE sessions annually (Budget Session in Feb-May, Monsoon Session in Jul-Aug, Winter Session in Nov-Dec), but this is convention, not constitutional prescription. Statement 3 is CORRECT. The Constitution does NOT prescribe a MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS for which Parliament must sit each year. While each session has its own duration determined by the government's legislative business, there is no constitutional minimum. The actual number of days Parliament sits has declined over the decades (early 1950s: 120-130 days; recent years: 60-80 days), prompting recurring calls for a minimum sitting requirement, but no constitutional amendment has been made. So 1 and 3 are correct; 2 misstates the Article 85 requirement. Source: Constitution of India Article 85; Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure; PRS Legislative Research analyses of parliamentary sittings.