Form For Tabling Parliamentary Questions: Fill & Download for Free

Date: 8th February 2018, BangaloreThe interview process was very well organised. We were asked to sit in a room, arrange our documents in a given order, and wait till they call us for Document Verification. After the Document Verification (which lasted for not more than 45minutes), Panels were assigned to us in groups of 8, each panel having 2 panelists.Panelists were handed over the list and the documents, and called out their respective students group. We were taken to the WAT\GD room.Topic: Should India have Presidential form of government?It was a 15 minutes WAT exercise followed by GD on the same topic for 10minutes. The GD went fairly well.Interview:P1: Hi Vaishali, please have a seat. So in the GD, you seemed to be more inclined towards the Parliamentary form of government. Can you tell me a country (Other than US), which has Presidential form of government?Me: (after thinking for a while) I am not sure, sir. However, I guess Germany. (Wrong Answer)P1: and who is the President of Germany?Me: Sir, Actually I am not very sure about my answer. I think Germany because “Angela Merkel” who is the Chancellor is considered to be one of the most influential person in the world.P1: So you are making a guess?Me: Yes sir.P2 (after she went through my form for good 5 minutes) ; Vaishali, Tell us something about yourself that is not in the form.Me: I had a pre-prepared answer for the question. They seemed impressed. :PP1; Do you pay income tax? or do you have any idea about income tax?Me; Yes sir. I know about it.P1: So, if I tell you there is a person who pays 25000rs as Income tax,will you help me find his income. (handing me a paper)Me: Sure sir, I can try to find an approximate value. I started with the overall tax slabs and making a table about how would i proceed. he stopped me in the middle, saying “this is alright”P1; Write down the formula for (a+b)^3. Also derive it, without using numbers.Me: DoneP1: So, you said your father is a businessman. Don’t you want to assist him in his business?Me: No sir. I would like to stay in corporate sector only, as of now.P1: Tell me something about the Corporate Sector of India. Start with some companies name (10 maybe).Me: Named a few companies.P1; So any company other than the IT sector.Me; yes sir, there are multiple companies in various sectors, like Reliance etc. However, since I have always wanted to be in IT, I know more about the companies in this sector.P1: Anything about the Budget.Me: gave a very balanced answer that I had prepared in advance.P1: Any interest in politics. Will you tell me something about the leading ladies in politics?Me: Sure sir.Started with Sonia Gandhi, Smriti Irani, etc. (gave a one liner on who they are. then I said Kiran Bedi. (P1 and P2 shared a glance) I continue saying “An IPS officer who is now Lieutenant governor of Pondicherry”. (explained how they are appointed).P2: Can you tell me anything the monetary aspect of your hobbies?Me: Badminton is a sport of Summer olympics. and then there are Thomas cup and Uber cup… (and i continued talking about my hobbies)P2: Last question, why should we take you?Me: I started with associating my achievements with qualities like leadership, teamwork, etc (P2 interrupted saying these qualities everyone has, what is special about you).Me: Mam, I think …( answered)P1: Any calls from A,B,C?Me: No sirP1: Okay then, Vaishali. That’d be it.(I nodded and started to leave)P2: When you came you said you are adaptable, but initially you were nervous and near the end, you seemed confident.Me: (Smiling) it takes time for me to adjust, but I always do. Thank you sir. Thank you mam.Verdict: Converted

In India, shadow cabinet is not a recognised team and the formation of shadow cabinet largely depends on how the opposition is going to attack the government over the policies.In Indian constitutional set up, there are various parliamentary committees that examine the government policies and implementation. These committees consists of members both from the ruling and opposition parties.Indian parliament has three financial committees of which public accounts committee is headed by opposition party while the remaining two committees are headed by ruling party which are estimates committee and PSU committee.Each department has a standing committee formed for a period of one year and is reconstituted every year.Some of the committees are headed by ruling members while remaining committees are headed by opposition members. But all committees will have representative both from the ruling alliance as well as the opposition alliance.There are about 40 committees functioning in the parliament and there are provisions for ad-hoc committees when necessary to investigate an issue. There were around 7 ad-hoc communities since independence.The issues are debated by these committee members in presence of concerned ministers who are answerable to the questions put up by the committee.These committees have a chairman, debates are conducted by these committees and the conclusion remarks of the committees after the debates point out the short comings in a policy or the necessity/importance of having such a policy. The committees findings are tabled in the general session and the un-official shadow cabinet ministers (if there is one (depends on the decision of the opposition party)) question the motive, execution and outcome of projects, schemes and quickly point out the shortcomings.In India, the chairperson of committees can be called somewhat an answer to shadow cabinet ministers but we cannot call this as India’s shadow cabinet because these committees are not formed entirely by opposition. These committees are formed with members both from ruling alliance as well as opposition alliance.

Undemocratic behaviour?The British PM is returning to common practice. The move is even less surprising when taking into account the UK is currently enjoying the longest Parliamentary session ever since 1653, so a Queen’s Speech is long overdue.Parliamentary sessions and sittingsHow long is a session?There is no fixed length for a session, but they generally follow the same pattern from spring to spring, with a number of recesses. The actual dates of sittings usually vary slightly between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Prior to 2010 sessions generally ran from autumn to autumn.ProrogationProrogation (pronounced 'pro-ro-ga-tion') marks the end of a parliamentary session. It is the formal name given to the period between the end of a session of Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved.How is prorogation marked?The Queen formally prorogues Parliament on the advice of the Privy Council.Prorogation usually takes the form of an announcement, on behalf of the Queen, read in the House of Lords. As with the State Opening, it is made to both Houses and the Speaker of the House of Commons and MPs attend the Lords chamber to listen to the speech.The same announcement is then read out by the Speaker in the Commons. Following this both the House of Commons and House of Lords are officially prorogued and will not meet again until the State Opening of Parliament.Prorogation announcementThe prorogation announcement sets out the major bills which have been passed during that session and also describes other measures which have been taken by the government.What happens to bills still in progress at prorogation?Prorogation brings to an end nearly all parliamentary business.However, Public Bills may be carried over from one session to the next, subject to agreement. The first Bill to be treated in this way was the Financial Services and Markets Bill in session 1998-99.What happens to questions for government departments at prorogation?Motions (including early day motions) lapse when the House becomes prorogued, questions which have not been answered fall, nothing more will happen with them. If they have not been answered then they will stay unanswered. No motions or questions can be tabled during a prorogation. On the occasions when departments are unable to answer questions substantively before prorogation, ministers provide a standard answer worded as follows: ‘It has not proved possible to respond to the [Right] hon Member in the time available before Prorogation.In fact this formerly routine practice will in fact be substantially shorter than Remainer and former PM Major’s same action.Boris's Prorogation Will Be Shorter than Major's -The news of Boris’s planned prorogation has naturally sent Remainers into hysterics, calling the move “undemocratic“, “outrageous” and comparing the PM to a “tin pot dictator” – all for using a bog-standard procedural technique. It’s set to be an entertaining day…As Guido has reported before, prorogation has historically been used by Attlee, Major and Canadian PM Stephen Harper for political purposes. The move is even less surprising when taking into account the UK is currently enjoying the longest Parliamentary session ever since 1653, so a Queen’s Speech is long overdue.Whilst everyone else is losing their heads, Guido thought it would be helpful to remind everyone that John Major’s prorogation – which he used to cover up the cash for questions scandal – lasted from the March 21 until the 1997 General Election: a period of 6 weeks, compare this to today’s announced prorogation that will result in Parliament losing only 4 sitting days. One rule for remainers, another for Boris.Regardless of returning to standard practice, Remainers would have tried to continue rejecting democracy itself in elitist attempt to subvert Brexit.So it wouldn’t “backfire” and it won’t prevent Remainers from trying to continue to reject the democratic will of the British people.The ecstatic outrage of Remainer MPs can't distract from their bizarre failureTry as they might, the Remainers can no longer even mildly pull off the charade that they are respectable constitutionalists who merely seek to uphold parliamentary procedure. In recent months, they have more closely resembled tax-dodging lawyers, searching for grubby legal loopholes to cheat the country out of Brexit.Do they think we have forgotten how MPs talked openly of a parliamentary coup to replace Boris Johnson with an anti-no deal leader? Or how John Bercow set fire to the parliamentary rulebook, Erskine May, in January, by allowing members to pass an amendment that gave Theresa May a three-day deadline to come up with a Plan B to replace her failed deal? Or how MPs stretched parliamentary rules to the very limit to pass a law, ordering the executive to seek a Brexit delay? Or how Labour forced the Government to publish the Withdrawal Agreement’s legal advice – which, irrespective of the quality of the deal, flew in the face of convention?The seething ululations of the Remainers seem even more absurd when one considers that events are unfolding in the sordid Westminster parallel universe, where nothing is as it seems and everyone is a liar. The Remainers may try to depict themselves as noble democratic warriors, committed to a final showdown with the Government, but in truth earlier this week they gave in.Arguably, Mr Johnson moved to prorogue Parliament because they showed weakness on Tuesday, exposing themselves as unwilling to back a no-confidence vote, even though it is the only realistic way to stop no deal; Mr Johnson seized on this chance to force the hand of the bluffing Remainers and focus minds in unbending Brussels.There is, alas, a disgraceful logic to the dissipating Remainer boldness. In Westminster, the only thing worse than a battle lost is a battle won. And while Jeremy Corbyn secretly favours an election after a clean break with the EU so his party can then cynically lambaste an “extremist” Tory Brexit, 
Jo Swinson is concerned that backing either the Labour leader or a Tory 
MP in an anti-Brexit emergency government would alienate swing voters who have switched to her party from both Right and Left.If they call a no-confidence motion it won’t be over principle, but to save face. Perhaps one cannot expect any better from two of the worst opposition leaders in British history. The Jo Swinsons and Jeremy Corbyns are to our terminal political system what nail bars and chicken shops are to our dying high streets – the last shoddy dregs clinging on for survival.There are two happy twists in this dismal saga. First, thanks to the Remainers, it is now more likely than ever that we will enjoy a clean break from the EU – as, in contrast with the Remainers, Brussels’ bluff cannot be called. Soon our PM will have no choice but to do a no-deal Brexit. And second, as MPs who have defied the referendum know full well, a swamp-draining general election is imminent.