Question 1

Statement I: During a proclaimed Emergency, the Indian political system transforms from federal to unitary without requiring a formal amendment to the Constitution.
Statement II: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar observed that unlike rigid federal systems like the American one, the Indian Constitution is designed to be flexible, functioning as federal in normal times and unitary in emergencies.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct as the text states that during an Emergency, the federal structure converts into a unitary one without a formal amendment. Statement II is also correct and provides the rationale behind this unique constitutional design, as articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, thus explaining Statement I.

Question 2

The Constitution of India uses specific expressions for different types of emergencies. Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 352 : National Emergency
2. Article 356 : State Emergency
3. Article 360 : Financial Emergency
How many of the pairs above use terminology that is NOT explicitly employed by the Constitution for that situation?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. The Constitution does not use the popular term 'National Emergency'; for Article 352, it uses the expression 'proclamation of emergency'. Similarly, for Article 356, the Constitution does not use the word 'emergency' at all; it is popularly known as 'President's Rule' or 'State Emergency'. The term 'Financial Emergency' for Article 360 is mentioned in the text as being due to a threat to financial stability. However, the source text explicitly states that for Article 352 and 356, the popular names are not the constitutional expressions. Therefore, two pairs use terminology not explicitly employed by the Constitution.

Question 3

Consider the following pairs regarding the views of Constituent Assembly members on the Emergency Provisions:
1. H.V. Kamath : Feared the foundation of a totalitarian state.
2. K.T. Shah : Described the provisions as a 'chapter of reaction and retrogression'.
3. H.N. Kunzru : Believed the provisions would work as a 'safety-valve'.
4. T.T. Krishnamachari : Warned of a 'constitutional dictatorship'.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correct as H.V. Kamath feared the foundation of a totalitarian state. Pair 2 is correct as K.T. Shah described the provisions as a 'chapter of reaction and retrogression'. Pair 4 is correct as T.T. Krishnamachari feared a 'constitutional dictatorship'. Pair 3 is incorrect; it was Mahabir Tyagi who opined that the provisions would work as a 'safety-valve', while H.N. Kunzru was a critic who feared for the financial autonomy of the States. Therefore, only three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 4

With reference to the Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. The primary rationale for including these provisions is to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the country.
2. During an Emergency, the states go into the total control of the Centre.
3. The transformation of the political system to a unitary one during an emergency is a feature that makes the Indian Constitution unique compared to the American Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. Statement 1 is correct as the text explicitly mentions safeguarding sovereignty, unity, integrity, and security as the rationale. Statement 2 is correct as the text states that during an Emergency, 'the states go into the total control of the Centre'. Statement 3 is also correct; the text highlights this transformation as a 'unique feature of the Indian Constitution' and contrasts it with the American system which cannot change its federal form.

Question 5

Consider the following statements regarding the debate on Emergency Provisions in the Constituent Assembly:
1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar completely denied any possibility of the misuse of emergency powers for political purposes.
2. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar was a staunch critic of the emergency provisions, labelling them a threat to democracy.
3. The provisions were criticized on the ground that they would nullify the financial autonomy of the states.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is not correct; Dr. Ambedkar accepted the possibility of misuse of these provisions. Statement 2 is not correct; Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar was a proponent of the provisions, calling them the 'very life-breath of the Constitution'. Statement 3 is correct; the text lists the nullification of the financial autonomy of the states as one of the grounds for criticism. The question asks for the statements that are NOT correct.

Question 6

Consider the following statements regarding the proclamation of a National Emergency in India:
1. The President can proclaim a national emergency solely on the advice of the Prime Minister.
2. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 made it mandatory for the President to receive a written recommendation from the cabinet before declaring a national emergency.
3. A proclamation of national emergency can be challenged in a court on the ground of malafide.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 mandated that a National Emergency can be declared only on the written recommendation of the cabinet, not merely on the advice of the Prime Minister. Statement 2 is correct as it reflects this change. Statement 3 is also correct; the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that the proclamation can be challenged on grounds of malafide.

Question 7

Consider the following developments related to the National Emergency provisions:
1. Substitution of 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' as a ground for National Emergency.
2. Enabling the President to limit the operation of a National Emergency to a specific part of India.
3. Deletion of the provision that made the declaration of a National Emergency immune from judicial review.
4. Appointment of the Shah Commission to investigate the circumstances of the 1975 Emergency.
How many of the above developments were part of the 44th Amendment Act, 1978?

Accepted Answer

Only two. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, introduced two of these changes: it substituted 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' (1) and it deleted the provision added by the 38th Amendment that made the declaration immune from judicial review (3). The provision to limit the emergency to a part of India was enabled by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The appointment of the Shah Commission preceded the 44th Amendment Act and was an action of the Janta Party government, not a provision of the Act itself.

Question 8

Consider the following statements about National Emergency under Article 352:
1. A National Emergency declared on the ground of 'war' is known as an External Emergency.
2. The President can declare a national emergency only after the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion.
3. The term 'internal disturbance' was the original constitutional ground for what is now known as Internal Emergency.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 2 is not correct. The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion if satisfied that there is an imminent danger. Statement 1 is correct, as emergencies on grounds of war or external aggression are termed External Emergencies. Statement 3 is also correct; 'internal disturbance' was the original ground before being replaced by 'armed rebellion' by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

Question 9

Statement I: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 substituted the words 'armed rebellion' for 'internal disturbance' as a ground for proclaiming a National Emergency.
Statement II: The National Emergency declared in 1975 was widely criticized for being based on the vague and wide-ranging ground of 'internal disturbance'.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. The term 'internal disturbance' was considered vague and was used to declare the controversial 1975 emergency. The widespread criticism and the findings of the Shah Commission, which investigated the 1975 emergency, led the Janta Party government to enact the 44th Amendment. This amendment replaced 'internal disturbance' with the more precise term 'armed rebellion' to prevent future misuse. Therefore, Statement II provides the direct historical context and reason for the constitutional change mentioned in Statement I.

Question 10

Consider the following pairs:
1. 38th Amendment Act, 1975 : Made the proclamation of emergency subject to judicial review.
2. 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 : Enabled the President to limit the emergency to a part of India.
3. Minerva Mills case, 1980 : Upheld the immunity of emergency proclamation from judicial review.
4. Shah Commission : Justified the imposition of the 1975 Emergency.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only one pair. Only one pair is correctly matched. Pair 2 is correct: The 42nd Amendment enabled the President to limit a National Emergency to a specific part of India. Pair 1 is incorrect: The 38th Amendment made the proclamation immune from judicial review. Pair 3 is incorrect: The Minerva Mills case held that the proclamation can be challenged in court, thereby striking down the immunity. Pair 4 is incorrect: The Shah Commission did not justify the declaration of the 1975 Emergency.

Question 11

With reference to the Parliamentary approval of a Financial Emergency, consider the following statements:
1. A proclamation of Financial Emergency must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months from its issue date.
2. Once approved by Parliament, the Financial Emergency continues indefinitely without the need for repeated approvals.
3. The resolution for approving the proclamation of Financial Emergency must be passed by a special majority in each House.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct as the proclamation requires approval from both Houses within two months. Statement 2 is also correct because once approved, a Financial Emergency continues indefinitely until revoked, and repeated parliamentary approval is not necessary. Statement 3 is incorrect; a resolution approving a Financial Emergency requires only a simple majority (a majority of the members of that house present and voting), not a special majority.

Question 12

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The President of India can revoke a proclamation of Financial Emergency at any time by a subsequent proclamation, which does not require parliamentary approval.
Statement II: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision that makes it mandatory for the President to revoke a proclamation of emergency if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving its continuation.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.. Statement I is correct; the President has the power to revoke a Financial Emergency unilaterally. Statement II is also correct; the 44th Amendment Act created a check on the continuation of an emergency by empowering the Lok Sabha to force its revocation. However, Statement II describes a specific check on the continuation of an emergency initiated by the Lok Sabha, while Statement I describes the President's inherent power to revoke it at any time. Therefore, Statement II does not explain Statement I; they are two distinct aspects of the revocation process.

Question 13

Consider the following statements regarding the duration and revocation of a Financial Emergency:
1. There is no maximum period prescribed for the operation of a Financial Emergency.
2. Repeated parliamentary approval is required every six months for its continuation.
3. A resolution for the disapproval of a Financial Emergency can be passed by either House of Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct; a Financial Emergency can continue indefinitely. Statement 2 is incorrect; unlike other emergencies, a Financial Emergency does not require repeated parliamentary approval for its continuation. Statement 3 is incorrect; a resolution of disapproval needs to be passed by the Lok Sabha only, not by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are not correct.

Question 14

Consider the following procedural aspects related to a proclamation of emergency:
1. A resolution approving a proclamation of Financial Emergency must be adopted by a simple majority.
2. A resolution approving the continuation of a proclamation of emergency must be adopted by a special majority.
3. A special sitting of the Lok Sabha for considering disapproval must be held within 14 days of a notice given by at least one-tenth of its total members.
4. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved, a proclamation of Financial Emergency survives if the Rajya Sabha has approved it in the meantime.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four statements. All four statements are correct based on the provided text. 1. Approval of Financial Emergency requires a simple majority. 2. The text explicitly contrasts a disapproval resolution with a resolution for 'approving the continuation of a proclamation', stating the latter needs a special majority. 3. The provision for a special sitting of the Lok Sabha upon notice by one-tenth of its members to be held within 14 days is mentioned. 4. The proclamation survives a Lok Sabha dissolution for 30 days after the new House sits, provided the Rajya Sabha has already approved it.

Question 15

Consider the following pairs regarding the parliamentary resolutions for a Financial Emergency:
1. Resolution for Approval : Passed by both Houses of Parliament.
2. Resolution for Disapproval : Passed by the Lok Sabha only.
3. Majority for Approval : Special Majority.
4. Majority for Disapproval : Simple Majority.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched as approval requires passage in both Houses. Pair 2 is correctly matched as disapproval requires passage in the Lok Sabha only. Pair 4 is correctly matched as disapproval requires only a simple majority. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched; the approval of a Financial Emergency requires a simple majority, not a special majority. Therefore, three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 16

With reference to the effects of a National Emergency on Centre-State relations, consider the following statements:
1. The state governments are suspended and their executive powers are taken over by the Centre.
2. The legislative power of a state legislature is suspended during a national emergency.
3. The normal distribution of legislative powers is suspended, and the Constitution effectively becomes unitary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. During a National Emergency, state governments and legislatures are not suspended. However, the Centre gains the power to give executive directions to states on any matter, and the Parliament can legislate on subjects in the State List. This suspends the normal federal distribution of powers, making the constitutional framework unitary in nature. Therefore, only statement 3 is correct.

Question 17

Consider the following statements regarding the operational timelines and procedures during a National Emergency:
1. Laws made by the Parliament on state subjects become inoperative immediately after the emergency ceases to operate.
2. A modification in the distribution of revenues by the President continues till the end of the financial year in which the Emergency ceases to operate.
3. Every order of the President modifying the distribution of finances between the Centre and the states must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect; laws made by Parliament on state subjects become inoperative six months after the emergency ceases. Statement 2 is correct; financial modifications last until the end of the financial year in which the emergency ends. Statement 3 is also correct; such presidential orders must be presented to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 18

Which of the following statements regarding the effects of a National Emergency is NOT correct?
1. The President can issue ordinances on state subjects if the Parliament is not in session.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 extended the executive and legislative consequences of an emergency to states not directly under the emergency proclamation.
3. The President can only reduce, but not cancel, the transfer of finances from the Centre to the states.

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. During a national emergency, the President can modify the constitutional distribution of revenues, which includes the power to either reduce or cancel the transfer of finances from the Centre to the states. Statements 1 and 2 are correct descriptions of the powers available during an emergency.

Question 19

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: During a National Emergency, the Parliament of India is empowered to make laws on any subject enumerated in the State List.
Statement II: During a National Emergency, the federal structure of the Constitution is temporarily suspended, and the system becomes unitary, granting overriding powers to the Union legislature.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is a correct fact. Statement II is also correct and provides the underlying constitutional reason for the fact in Statement I. The transformation of the system from federal to unitary is what empowers the Parliament to legislate on state subjects, thus making Statement II the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 20

Consider the following pairs regarding the impact of a National Emergency:
1. Executive Impact : State governments are brought under the complete control of the Centre.
2. Legislative Impact : State Legislatures are suspended.
3. Financial Impact : President can modify revenue distribution between Centre and states.
4. Duration of Parliamentary Law on State Subject : Becomes inoperative one year after the emergency ceases.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct; state governments come under the Centre's complete control. Pair 2 is incorrect; state legislatures are not suspended, but their power becomes subject to Parliament's overriding power. Pair 3 is correct; the President can modify the financial distribution. Pair 4 is incorrect; laws made by Parliament on state subjects become inoperative six months, not one year, after the emergency ceases. Thus, only two pairs are correctly matched.

Question 21

Consider the following statements regarding the extension of the term of the Lok Sabha during a National Emergency:
1. The life of the Lok Sabha can be extended by a law of Parliament.
2. Each extension can be for a period of one year at a time.
3. This extension cannot continue beyond a period of one year after the emergency has ceased to operate.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. During a National Emergency, the Parliament can pass a law to extend the normal term of the Lok Sabha for one year at a time, for any length of time. However, this extension cannot last beyond six months after the emergency has ended. Therefore, statement 3 is incorrect.

Question 22

With reference to the suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 358, consider the following statements:
1. The six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are automatically suspended when a National Emergency is proclaimed.
2. The 44th Amendment Act stipulated that Article 19 can only be suspended if the emergency is declared on the ground of armed rebellion.
3. After the 44th Amendment, all laws passed during the emergency are protected from being challenged under Article 19.
4. A separate Presidential order is required for the suspension of rights under Article 19.
How many of the statements given above are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct. Statements 2, 3, and 4 are incorrect. The 44th Amendment allows suspension of Article 19 only on grounds of 'war or external aggression', not 'armed rebellion'. Only laws related to the emergency are protected, not all laws. The suspension under Article 358 is automatic and does not require a separate Presidential order. Thus, three statements are not correct.

Question 23

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358 by limiting the suspension of Article 19 to National Emergencies declared on grounds of war or external aggression only.
Statement II: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 also made the right to move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable by the President under Article 359.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced significant restrictions on emergency provisions. It limited the suspension of Article 19 (under Article 358) and also protected the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 (under Article 359). However, Statement II describes a separate change made by the same amendment and does not explain why the change in Statement I was made. They are two independent effects of the same Act.

Question 24

With reference to Article 359 of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. It authorises the Parliament to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights.
2. Under Article 359, the Fundamental Rights themselves are suspended, not just their enforcement.
3. Any Presidential Order suspending the enforcement of Fundamental Rights must be laid before each House of Parliament for approval.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 359 authorises the President, not the Parliament, to issue such an order. Statement 2 is incorrect because under Article 359, only the enforcement (the right to move court) of the specified Fundamental Rights is suspended, not the rights themselves. Statement 3 is correct as the Presidential Order must be laid before each House of Parliament for its approval.

Question 25

Consider the following effects of a National Emergency:
1. Automatic revival of Article 19 when the National Emergency ceases to operate.
2. The right to protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20) remains enforceable.
3. The normal tenure of a state legislative assembly can be extended by Parliament for two years at a time.
4. Legislative actions taken during the emergency can be challenged for inconsistency with specified Fundamental Rights after the emergency ceases.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct; Article 19 automatically revives. Statement 2 is correct; the 44th Amendment protects the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21. Statement 3 is incorrect; the tenure of a state assembly can be extended by one year at a time. Statement 4 is incorrect; no remedy lies for anything done during the emergency, and actions taken cannot be challenged even after the emergency expires. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 26

Consider the following statements regarding the differences between Article 358 and Article 359:
1. Article 358 operates only in the case of an External Emergency, whereas Article 359 operates during both External and Internal Emergencies.
2. Article 358 automatically suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19, while Article 359 requires a Presidential Order to suspend the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights.
3. Article 358 suspends Article 19 completely, whereas Article 359 does not empower the suspension of the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21.
4. Article 358 may extend to a part of the country, whereas Article 359 always extends to the entire country.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 4 is incorrect. Article 358 extends to the entire country, whereas Article 359 may extend to the entire country or only a part of it. Statements 1, 2, and 3 accurately describe the differences between the two articles based on the type of emergency, the mechanism of suspension, and the scope of rights affected.

Question 27

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: Article 358 automatically suspends the fundamental rights under Article 19 as soon as an External Emergency is declared.
Statement II: Article 359 empowers the President to suspend the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights, but this power is not automatic and requires a specific order.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct descriptions of the functioning of Articles 358 and 359, respectively. However, Statement II describes the distinct mechanism of Article 359 and does not explain why Article 358 operates automatically. They are two separate, contrasting provisions.

Question 28

With reference to the provisions of National Emergency, consider the following statements:
1. Article 358 operates only when an emergency is declared on the ground of armed rebellion.
2. Article 359 empowers the President to suspend the enforcement of any Fundamental Right without exception.
3. The suspension of enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 359 can be for a period shorter than the entire duration of the Emergency.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 358 operates only in case of an External Emergency (war or external aggression), not an Internal Emergency (armed rebellion). Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 359 does not empower the suspension of the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21. Statement 3 is correct as the President can specify the duration of suspension under Article 359.

Question 29

Consider the following statements regarding the suspension of Fundamental Rights:
1. The suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 is an automatic consequence of a declaration of National Emergency on the grounds of war or external aggression.
2. The President is empowered to suspend the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights under Article 359 during both External and Internal Emergencies.
3. Both Article 358 and Article 359 provide immunity from legal challenge to any law made during the emergency, even if it is unrelated to the emergency.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Article 358's effect is automatic in an External Emergency. Article 359 can be invoked by the President in both External and Internal Emergencies. Statement 3 is incorrect because both articles provide immunity only to those laws that are related to the Emergency and not to other, unrelated laws.

Question 30

Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 358 : Suspension of enforcement of Fundamental Rights
2. Article 359 : Automatic suspension of Fundamental Rights
3. Article 358 : Applicable only during External Emergency
4. Article 359 : Can apply to a part of the country
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrectly matched; Article 358 suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19 themselves, while Article 359 suspends the enforcement of specified rights. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched; Article 359 does not automatically suspend any right, it only empowers the President to do so. Pairs 3 and 4 are correctly matched as per the distinctions between the two articles.

Question 31

Consider the following statements regarding the effects of President's Rule in a state:
1. The state legislative assembly must be dissolved immediately upon the presidential proclamation.
2. A law made by the Parliament for the state during President's Rule ceases to be operative as soon as the proclamation ends.
3. The President can promulgate ordinances for the governance of the state if the Parliament is not in session.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in the Bommai case (1994) held that the state legislative assembly should be dissolved only after the Parliament has approved the presidential proclamation; until then, it can only be suspended. Statement 2 is incorrect. A law made by the Parliament or President during this period continues to be operative even after President's Rule, until it is repealed or altered by the state legislature. Statement 3 is correct. The President can promulgate ordinances for the state's governance when the Parliament is not in session.

Question 32

Consider the following two statements:
Statement I: During the operation of President's Rule in a state, the President can assume to himself the powers vested in the concerned state high court.
Statement II: The constitutional position, status, powers, and functions of the concerned state high court remain unaltered during President's Rule.

Accepted Answer

Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct.. Statement I is incorrect. The President cannot assume the powers vested in the concerned state high court or suspend the constitutional provisions relating to it. Statement II is correct as it accurately describes that the functioning and powers of the state high court are not affected by the imposition of President's Rule. Therefore, Statement I is incorrect, while Statement II is correct.

Question 33

Based on the Supreme Court's judgment in the S.R. Bommai case (1994), in
how many of the following situations would the imposition of President's Rule be considered improper?
1. A ministry resigns, and the governor recommends President's Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry.
2. A state government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and fomenting a violent revolt.
3. The governor makes his own assessment of a ministry's support in the assembly without a floor test.
4. The ruling party in the state suffers a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha.

Accepted Answer

Only three. The Supreme Court, in the S.R. Bommai case, laid down guidelines for the imposition of President's Rule. Situation 1 is improper. Situation 3 is improper. Situation 4 is improper. However, Situation 2 (internal subversion) is listed as a proper ground for imposing President's Rule. Therefore, three of the listed situations are considered improper grounds.

Question 34

With reference to the grounds for the imposition of President's Rule,
which of the statements given below is/are NOT correct?
1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation only after receiving a report from the governor of the state.
2. A state's failure to comply with any direction from the Centre can be a valid ground for the imposition of President's Rule.
3. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 made the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 subject to judicial review.

Accepted Answer

1 only. Statement 1 is not correct because Article 356 allows the President to act either on a report of the governor or 'otherwise too', meaning even without the governor's report. Statement 2 is correct as per Article 365. Statement 3 is correct; the 38th Amendment had made the President's satisfaction non-justiciable, but this was deleted by the 44th Amendment, thereby implying that it is subject to judicial review. The question asks for the incorrect statement.

Question 35

Consider the following pairs regarding the imposition of President's Rule:
State : Number of Times Imposed
1. Uttar Pradesh : 9
2. Bihar : 8
3. Manipur : 10
4. Punjab : 7
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Based on the provided table: Pair 1 (Uttar Pradesh: 9) is correctly matched. Pair 2 (Bihar: 8) is correctly matched. Pair 3 (Manipur: 10) is correctly matched. Pair 4 (Punjab: 7) is incorrectly matched; President's Rule was imposed 8 times in Punjab. Therefore, only three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 36

Consider the following statements regarding a Financial Emergency under Article 360:
1. The satisfaction of the President in declaring a Financial Emergency is final and not subject to judicial review.
2. During its operation, the President can direct any state to reserve all Money Bills for his consideration.
3. The President can issue directions for the reduction of salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 deleted the provision that made the President's satisfaction final, thereby making it subject to judicial review. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as they are among the consequences of the proclamation of a Financial Emergency, where the Centre gains significant financial control over the states and can reduce salaries of Union employees and judges.

Question 37

Consider the following statements comparing National Emergency (Article 352) and President's Rule (Article 356):
1. During a National Emergency, the state legislature is suspended.
2. The maximum period for the operation of President's Rule is three years.
3. A resolution approving the continuance of a National Emergency requires a simple majority in Parliament.
4. President's Rule has no effect on the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.
How many of the above statements are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect; during a National Emergency, the state legislature continues to function. Statement 3 is incorrect; a resolution for the continuance of a National Emergency requires a special majority. Statements 2 and 4 are correct. Therefore, two statements are not correct.

Question 38

Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 355 : Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states
2. Article 358 : Suspension of provisions of Article 19 during Emergencies
3. Article 357 : Exercise of legislative powers under proclamation of Financial Emergency
4. Article 360 : Provisions as to Financial Emergency
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect; Article 355 pertains to the duty of the Union to protect states, while Article 356 deals with the failure of constitutional machinery. Pair 3 is incorrect; Article 357 deals with the exercise of legislative powers under a proclamation issued under Article 356 (President's Rule), not Financial Emergency. Pairs 2 and 4 are correctly matched. Therefore, only two pairs are correct.

Question 39

Statement I: During the operation of President's Rule in a state, the Parliament can delegate the power to make laws for that state to the President.
Statement II: Under President's Rule, the state legislature is either suspended or dissolved, and its legislative powers are assumed by the Centre.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. During President's Rule, the state legislature ceases to perform its legislative functions as it is either suspended or dissolved. Consequently, the legislative power of the state is assumed by the Parliament (Centre), as stated in Statement II. To manage the legislative business, Parliament can then delegate this law-making power to the President or any other authority it specifies, as mentioned in Statement I. Thus, Statement II provides the foundational reason for the delegation of power described in Statement I.

Question 40

With reference to the differences between National Emergency and President's Rule, consider the following statements:
1. A proclamation of National Emergency modifies the relationship of the Centre with all the states, whereas President's Rule modifies it only with the state under emergency.
2. During a National Emergency, the state executive and legislature are dismissed, and their powers are assumed by the Centre.
3. A National Emergency affects the Fundamental Rights of citizens, while President's Rule has no such effect.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct as a National Emergency has a broader impact on the federal structure than the state-specific President's Rule. Statement 2 is incorrect; it describes the effect of President's Rule. During a National Emergency, state governments continue to function, although under the concurrent authority of the Centre. Statement 3 is correct; provisions under National Emergency can affect Fundamental Rights, whereas President's Rule does not have this consequence.

Question 41

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 increased the period for which a proclamation of President's Rule could continue, once approved by Parliament, from six months to one year.
Statement II: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 reversed this change, reducing the period back to six months.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. The 42nd Amendment Act did raise the duration of President's Rule (once approved) to one year. The 44th Amendment Act subsequently reduced this period back to six months. However, Statement II describes a later, reversing action, not an explanation for why Statement I occurred.

Question 42

Consider the following statements:
1. The term 'Cabinet' is defined in Article 352 as the council consisting of the Prime Minister and other ministers of the Cabinet rank.
2. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 replaced the phrase 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' for the proclamation of a National Emergency.
3. The 68th Amendment Act of 1991 enabled the continuation of President's Rule in Punjab for a maximum period of three years.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. The 68th Amendment Act of 1991 allowed the President's Rule imposed in Punjab in May 1987 to continue for five years, not three. Statements 1 and 2 are correct as per the definitions and amendments related to emergency provisions.

Question 43

With reference to the Fifth Lok Sabha, consider the following statements:
1. Its term was extended twice, with each extension lasting for a period of one year.
2. It was dissolved after completing its full extended term of seven years.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. Statement 1 is correct. The term of the Fifth Lok Sabha was extended by one year until March 1977, and then for a further period of one year until March 1978. Statement 2 is incorrect because the House was dissolved in January 1977, having been in existence for only five years, ten months, and six days, thus not completing even the first one-year extension.

Question 44

Consider the following pairs regarding early instances of President's Rule and state mergers:
1. PEPSU : Merged into Punjab State in 1956.
2. Vindhya Pradesh : Merged into Madhya Pradesh State in 1956.
3. Travancore-Cochin : Second state to have President's Rule imposed.
How many of the pairs above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All three pairs. All three pairs are correctly matched. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was merged into Punjab in 1956. Vindhya Pradesh was merged into Madhya Pradesh in 1956. The source notes imply that after the first instance in Andhra State, the next was in Travancore-Cochin.

Question 45

Consider the following statements regarding the duration of an approved proclamation of President's Rule:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 extended the duration for which an approved proclamation could continue from six months to one year.
2. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 reduced the one-year duration back to six months.
3. The term of the Fifth Lok Sabha was extended by one year through the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are factually correct. Statement 1 and 2 accurately describe the changes made by the 42nd and 44th Amendments to the duration of President's Rule. Statement 3 correctly identifies the Act used to extend the term of the Fifth Lok Sabha.

Question 46

Considering the recent judicial scrutiny over gubernatorial powers as highlighted in the 'Tamil Nadu governor case', analyze the following statements regarding the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356. How many of the below situations are considered improper grounds for recommending President's Rule, according to the guidelines laid down in the S.R. Bommai case?

1. The Governor recommends President's Rule because the state government disregarded a constitutional direction from the Central government.
2. The Governor, based on his own assessment of a ministry's support, recommends President's Rule without allowing a floor test.
3. The Governor recommends President's Rule to resolve internal disputes within the state's ruling party.
4. The Governor recommends President's Rule due to allegations of maladministration and corruption against the ministry.

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 describes a proper ground for imposing President's Rule, as per Article 365 and affirmed by the Sarkaria Commission/Bommai case. Statements 2, 3, and 4 are all listed as improper grounds in the S.R. Bommai case judgment. The Governor cannot make a subjective assessment without a floor test, use Article 356 for sorting out intra-party issues, or invoke it for maladministration/corruption. Therefore, three of the statements describe improper grounds.

Question 47

Considering the recent imposition of President's Rule in Manipur in February 2025 and the principles laid down in the S.R. Bommai case (1994), analyze the following statements:
1. The Governor can recommend President's Rule based on a subjective assessment of a ministry losing support, without first allowing a floor test in the Assembly.
2. The imposition of President's Rule in Manipur, following the Chief Minister's resignation and internal party disputes, is considered proper if the Governor has already explored and exhausted all possibilities of forming an alternative ministry.
3. The argument that President's Rule in Manipur provides a 'neutral administration' to handle ethnic violence aligns with the constitutional duty of the Union under Article 355 to protect the state from internal disturbance.
4. A state government pursuing anti-secular politics can be subjected to action under Article 356, as secularism is considered a basic feature of the Constitution.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is incorrect. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) and subsequent judgments established that the question of a government losing majority should be decided on the floor of the House, not by the Governor's subjective assessment. Statement 2 is correct as it aligns with the proper use of Article 356, where President's Rule is a last resort after the failure to form an alternative government. Statement 3 is correct; the current affairs article explicitly links the need for neutral administration in Manipur to the Union's duty under Article 355. Statement 4 is correct as the S.R. Bommai case laid down that a state government pursuing anti-secular politics is liable to action under Article 356. Therefore, three statements are correct.

Question 48

Considering the constitutional provisions on emergencies and their historical context, analyze the following statements:

1. The 38th Amendment Act, 1975, made the President's satisfaction in declaring both a National Emergency and a Financial Emergency immune from judicial review.
2. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which made the President's satisfaction for declaring a Financial Emergency subject to judicial review, also replaced the ground of 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' for National Emergency.
3. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) established judicial review for President's Rule (Article 356), a principle that aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Minerva Mills case (1980) for National Emergency.
4. A proclamation of a Financial Emergency requires parliamentary approval within two months of its issue, whereas a National Emergency requires it within one month.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct as the 38th Amendment made the President's satisfaction non-justiciable for both National Emergency (mentioned in CA) and Financial Emergency (mentioned in static text). Statement 2 is correct as the 44th Amendment introduced both changes (mentioned in static and CA texts). Statement 3 is correct as both landmark cases established the principle of judicial review for different types of emergencies. Statement 4 is correct, reflecting the different timelines for parliamentary approval for National Emergency (one month, as per CA) and Financial Emergency (two months, as per CA and static text).

Question 49

Considering the recent events in Manipur where Article 356 (President's Rule) was not imposed despite severe internal disturbances, analyze the following statements regarding India's emergency provisions:

1. The grounds for a National Emergency under Article 352 are distinct from the situation in Manipur, as it requires a threat of 'war, external aggression or armed rebellion', not just 'internal disturbance'.
2. If a Financial Emergency under Article 360 were proclaimed, the Centre's control would extend to reducing the salaries of Supreme Court judges, a power not available under President's Rule.
3. Unlike President's Rule, which has a maximum duration of three years, a National Emergency can be continued indefinitely with parliamentary approval every six months.
4. The President's satisfaction in proclaiming any emergency, whether under Article 352, 356, or 360, is subject to judicial review.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements are correct. 1. The term 'internal disturbance' was replaced by 'armed rebellion' for National Emergency by the 44th Amendment, making its grounds different from the situation in Manipur. 2. The static text explicitly states that during a Financial Emergency (Art 360), the President can direct the reduction of salaries for judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. 3. The comparison table confirms that a National Emergency has no maximum duration, unlike President's Rule which is capped at three years. 4. The 44th Amendment Act (1978) and the S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) established that the President's satisfaction for proclaiming an emergency is not beyond judicial review.

Emergency Provisions

Unlock All Questions