Explanation:

This question addresses the constitutional implications of a no-confidence motion in the Indian parliamentary system. (A) Lok Sabha is dissolved: The passing of a no-confidence motion does not directly lead to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. It leads to the resignation of the Council of Ministers. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha occurs if the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, decides to dissolve it, or if no party can form a stable government after the Council of Ministers resigns. The document incorrectly indicated this option as the correct answer. Therefore, this option is factually incorrect as a direct consequence. (B) Only Prime Minister and that minister resigns: A no-confidence motion is moved against the entire Council of Ministers, not just an individual minister or the Prime Minister alone. The principle of collective responsibility dictates that the entire Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha. Therefore, this option is incorrect. (C) The whole Council of Ministers resigns: According to Article 75(3) of the Indian Constitution, 'The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha)'. If a no-confidence motion is passed against the Council of Ministers, it signifies that the government has lost the confidence of the majority in the Lok Sabha. Consequently, the entire Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, must resign. This option is correct. (D) The Minister resigns: A no-confidence motion is a collective motion against the entire Council of Ministers, not an individual minister. An individual minister might resign due to other reasons or if a censure motion is passed against them, but not solely because of a no-confidence motion against the government. Therefore, this option is incorrect.