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 ?

Gives the constitutional rule that the maximum gap between two sessions cannot exceed six months, therefore Parliament must meet at least twice a year; also notes that there are usually three sessions.

A student can combine the 'max six months' rule with a calendar to see that three sessions is a common practice but not strictly required by that rule.

Repeats the same constitutional limitation (no more than six months between sessions) and lists the usual practice of three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, Winter).

Use the listed customary sessions and the constitutional six-month gap to conclude three is customary, and compare with the constitutional minimum (two).

Defines what a 'session' is (period from first sitting to prorogation) and distinguishes recess, which helps interpret how session-count relates to constitutional provisions about meetings.

Knowing the formal meaning of 'session', a student can count sessions against the six-month gap rule to judge whether three sessions are mandated or merely procedural practice.

Explicitly states (in an examination context) that although there are usually three sessions in a year, 'it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions' and 'there is no minimum number of days Parliament is required to meet'.

A student can take this as an authoritative caveat that customary practice of three sessions does not equate to a constitutional prescription.

Notes the typical pattern used in textbooks/schools: Parliament 'typically meets three times a year' and names the three sessions, reinforcing that three is a common convention.

Combine this pedagogical statement with the constitutional six-month rule to distinguish common practice (three sessions) from constitutional requirement (minimum twice).

An UPSC practice item (from a standard text) states plainly that 'There is no minimum number of days that the Parliament is required to meet in a year.'

A student could treat this as a lead and verify against constitutional articles (e.g., summons/procedural provisions) or the Rules of Procedure to confirm absence of a formal minimum.

Explains the structure of sessions, meetings and sittings and describes procedural devices (adjournment, prorogation, dissolution) that control sitting days.

Using this, a student can infer that sitting frequency is governed by procedural practices (and executive/Presidential summons) rather than a fixed annual minimum, and should check constitutional summons powers for explicit minima.

Repeats that sessions comprise meetings and that adjournments can suspend sittings for indeterminate periods (adjournment sine die).

A student can combine this with knowledge of executive authority to summon/prorogue to argue that flexible adjournment powers make a rigid yearly minimum unnecessary unless explicitly provided.

Shows a constitutional pattern where the Constitution sets maximum/minimum limits in some contexts but leaves detailed allocation to law (e.g., seat numbers left to statute).

A student could use this pattern to ask whether the constitution would similarly prescribe sitting-days or leave them to law/practice, and thus check the specific constitutional provision on summoning/parliamentary sittings.

Gives examples of constitutional/legal time-limits (e.g., 14 days to resign a state seat), demonstrating that where framers intended time minima they include them explicitly.

A student can use this contrast: because the texts show explicit day-limits in some matters, the absence of such explicit limits in the session/summons material would support the conclusion that no minimum sitting-days is prescribed.