The correct option is 1 and 3 only.
Explanation
Article 108 of the Constitution of India provides for a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament. It is an extraordinary machinery devised to resolve a deadlock between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha over the passage of a bill.
Statement-wise Analysis:
- Statement 1 is Correct: A Joint Sitting is summoned by the President specifically to resolve a deadlock. A deadlock is deemed to exist if a bill passed by one House is rejected by the other, if the Houses have finally disagreed on the amendments, or if more than six months have elapsed without the bill being passed by the receiving House.
- Statement 2 is Incorrect: A Joint Sitting is not applicable to Constitutional Amendment Bills. Under Article 368, a Constitutional Amendment Bill must be passed by each House separately by a special majority. If there is a disagreement, the bill ends; there is no provision for a joint sitting. It is also not applicable to Money Bills.
- Statement 3 is Correct: The Lok Sabha has more than double the membership of the Rajya Sabha (543 vs. 245). Since decisions in a Joint Sitting are taken by a simple majority of the total members present and voting, the numerical superiority of the Lok Sabha ensures that its stance usually prevails. Historically, only three bills have been passed in joint sittings, all favoring the government's position in the Lok Sabha.
Key Takeaway:
Joint Sittings are applicable only to Ordinary Bills and Financial Bills. They cannot be used for Money Bills (where Lok Sabha overrides) or Constitutional Amendment Bills (which require separate passage).