All Exams >
BPSC (Bihar) >
Indian Polity for State PSC Exams >
All Questions
All questions of Emergency Provisions for BPSC (Bihar) Exam
Consider the following statements:Statement-I:
During a National Emergency in India, Article 358 automatically suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19.Statement-II:
During a National Emergency in India, the President is authorized to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21.Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?- a)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- b)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- c)Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
- d)Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
During a National Emergency in India, Article 358 automatically suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
During a National Emergency in India, Article 358 automatically suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
Statement-II:
During a National Emergency in India, the President is authorized to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21.
During a National Emergency in India, the President is authorized to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
a)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
b)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
c)
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
d)
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
|
Akshara Singh answered |
Explanation:
Statement-I:
- During a National Emergency in India, Article 358 does not automatically suspend the Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
- Article 358 only empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.
- This means that the other Fundamental Rights, apart from those under Article 19, remain intact during a National Emergency.
Statement-II:
- The correct provision that allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is under Article 359, not Article 21 as mentioned in Statement-II.
- Article 359 empowers the President to suspend the enforcement of all or any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution during a National Emergency.
- Therefore, Statement-II is incorrect as it mentions the wrong article for the President's authority to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Conclusion:
- In conclusion, Statement-I is correct as it mentions the suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency, but Statement-II is incorrect as it mentions a wrong provision for the President's authority to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Statement-I:
- During a National Emergency in India, Article 358 does not automatically suspend the Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
- Article 358 only empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.
- This means that the other Fundamental Rights, apart from those under Article 19, remain intact during a National Emergency.
Statement-II:
- The correct provision that allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is under Article 359, not Article 21 as mentioned in Statement-II.
- Article 359 empowers the President to suspend the enforcement of all or any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution during a National Emergency.
- Therefore, Statement-II is incorrect as it mentions the wrong article for the President's authority to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Conclusion:
- In conclusion, Statement-I is correct as it mentions the suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency, but Statement-II is incorrect as it mentions a wrong provision for the President's authority to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Consider the following statements:1. The President can declare a National Emergency on the grounds of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance.2. The President's power to declare a National Emergency requires a written recommendation from the cabinet.3. A National Emergency can be proclaimed for the entire country or a specified part of it.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)1 and 2 Only
- c)2 and 3 Only
- d)1, 2 and 3
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
1. The President can declare a National Emergency on the grounds of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance.
2. The President's power to declare a National Emergency requires a written recommendation from the cabinet.
3. A National Emergency can be proclaimed for the entire country or a specified part of it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
1 and 2 Only
c)
2 and 3 Only
d)
1, 2 and 3
|
Lakshya Ias answered |
- Statement 1: This statement is incorrect. The grounds for declaring a National Emergency include war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The original term "internal disturbance" was replaced with "armed rebellion" by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Therefore, "internal disturbance" is no longer a valid ground for declaring a National Emergency.
- Statement 2: This statement is correct. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced the requirement for a written recommendation from the cabinet for the President to declare a National Emergency, ensuring a collective decision-making process.
- Statement 3: This statement is correct. A National Emergency can indeed be proclaimed for the entire country or a specified part of it, as per the provisions of Article 352 of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, the correct statements are 2 and 3. Hence, the correct answer is Option C: 2 and 3 Only.
Consider the following statements:Statement-I:
During a National Emergency in India, the President's power to declare the emergency can be exercised in the face of imminent danger.Statement-II:
The geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation in India can apply only to the entire country and not to specified parts.Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?- a)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- b)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- c)Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
- d)Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
During a National Emergency in India, the President's power to declare the emergency can be exercised in the face of imminent danger.
During a National Emergency in India, the President's power to declare the emergency can be exercised in the face of imminent danger.
Statement-II:
The geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation in India can apply only to the entire country and not to specified parts.
The geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation in India can apply only to the entire country and not to specified parts.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
a)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
b)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
c)
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
d)
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
|
Shail Unni answered |
Understanding the Statements
In the context of the National Emergency provisions in India, let’s analyze both statements to determine their correctness.
Statement-I: Correctness
- Statement-I asserts that the President can declare a National Emergency in the face of imminent danger.
- This is indeed correct. Article 352 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to declare a National Emergency when there is a threat to the security of India or any part thereof due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Statement-II: Correctness
- Statement-II claims that the geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation can only apply to the entire country and not to specified parts.
- This statement is incorrect. While a National Emergency declaration typically applies to the whole country, it can also be limited to specific areas. For instance, during the 1975-77 Emergency, it was applicable to the entire nation, but the Constitution allows for localized declarations under specific circumstances.
Conclusion
- Since Statement-I is correct and Statement-II is incorrect, the correct answer is option 'C': Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.
This distinction is crucial as it reflects the flexibility embedded in the Constitution regarding emergency powers, allowing for regional applicability under certain conditions.
In the context of the National Emergency provisions in India, let’s analyze both statements to determine their correctness.
Statement-I: Correctness
- Statement-I asserts that the President can declare a National Emergency in the face of imminent danger.
- This is indeed correct. Article 352 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to declare a National Emergency when there is a threat to the security of India or any part thereof due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Statement-II: Correctness
- Statement-II claims that the geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation can only apply to the entire country and not to specified parts.
- This statement is incorrect. While a National Emergency declaration typically applies to the whole country, it can also be limited to specific areas. For instance, during the 1975-77 Emergency, it was applicable to the entire nation, but the Constitution allows for localized declarations under specific circumstances.
Conclusion
- Since Statement-I is correct and Statement-II is incorrect, the correct answer is option 'C': Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.
This distinction is crucial as it reflects the flexibility embedded in the Constitution regarding emergency powers, allowing for regional applicability under certain conditions.
Consider the following pairs:1. 1962 Emergency: Proclaimed due to Chinese aggression in NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh)
2. 1971 Emergency: Proclaimed due to internal disturbances
3. 1975 Emergency: Proclaimed due to an attack by Pakistan
4. Shah Commission: Appointed to investigate the circumstances of the 1975 Emergency
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?- a)Only one pair
- b)Only two pairs
- c)Only three pairs
- d)All four pairs
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following pairs:
1. 1962 Emergency: Proclaimed due to Chinese aggression in NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh)
2. 1971 Emergency: Proclaimed due to internal disturbances
3. 1975 Emergency: Proclaimed due to an attack by Pakistan
4. Shah Commission: Appointed to investigate the circumstances of the 1975 Emergency
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
2. 1971 Emergency: Proclaimed due to internal disturbances
3. 1975 Emergency: Proclaimed due to an attack by Pakistan
4. Shah Commission: Appointed to investigate the circumstances of the 1975 Emergency
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs
|
Upsc Rank Holders answered |
1. 1962 Emergency: Correctly matched. It was proclaimed due to Chinese aggression in NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh).
2. 1971 Emergency: Incorrectly matched. It was proclaimed due to an attack by Pakistan, not due to internal disturbances.
3. 1975 Emergency: Incorrectly matched. It was proclaimed due to internal disturbances, not due to an attack by Pakistan.
4. Shah Commission: Correctly matched. It was appointed to investigate the circumstances of the 1975 Emergency.
Hence, only tw0 pair is correctly matched.
Consider the following statements:1. During a National Emergency, Parliament can legislate on any subject in the State List.2. Article 358 allows for the automatic suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency.3. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted Article 359, ensuring the right to move the court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)1 and 2 Only
- c)1 and 3 Only
- d)1, 2 and 3
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
1. During a National Emergency, Parliament can legislate on any subject in the State List.
2. Article 358 allows for the automatic suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency.
3. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted Article 359, ensuring the right to move the court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
1 and 2 Only
c)
1 and 3 Only
d)
1, 2 and 3
|
Lohit Matani answered |
All three statements are correct based on the provisions outlined in the Indian Constitution regarding the effects of a National Emergency:
1. Statement 1: Correct. During a National Emergency, Parliament is empowered to legislate on any subject in the State List, overriding the normal distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the states.
2. Statement 2: Correct. Article 358 allows for the automatic suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency. This means that laws and executive actions inconsistent with Article 19 cannot be challenged during the Emergency.
3. Statement 3: Correct. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 did restrict Article 359, ensuring that the President cannot suspend the right to move the court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21, even during a National Emergency. This safeguard ensures protection from conviction for offences and upholds the right to life and personal liberty.
Thus, the correct answer is Option D.
During a National Emergency, which of the following Fundamental Rights automatically stands suspended under Article 358 of the Indian Constitution?- a)Right to Equality (Article 14)
- b)Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)
- c)Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
- d)Right against Exploitation (Article 23)
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
During a National Emergency, which of the following Fundamental Rights automatically stands suspended under Article 358 of the Indian Constitution?
a)
Right to Equality (Article 14)
b)
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)
c)
Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
d)
Right against Exploitation (Article 23)
|
Sanjana Roy answered |
Understanding Article 358 of the Indian Constitution
During a National Emergency, certain fundamental rights can be suspended or restricted. Article 358 specifically addresses the suspension of the right to freedom of speech and expression during such emergencies.
Key Points about Article 358:
- Scope of Suspension: Article 358 allows the government to suspend the enforcement of Article 19, which encompasses the right to freedom of speech and expression. This means that during a National Emergency, the state can impose restrictions on this fundamental right.
- Impact on Other Rights:
- Right to Equality (Article 14): This right remains unaffected during a National Emergency; it cannot be suspended.
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): This right is also not suspended under Article 358. It can only be restricted under the procedure established by law.
- Right against Exploitation (Article 23): Similar to the above rights, this right is not automatically suspended during a National Emergency.
Significance of Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- Democratic Values: The right to freedom of speech and expression is foundational to democracy. Its suspension during emergencies raises concerns about censorship and the curtailing of dissent.
- Checks and Balances: Even during an emergency, the government is expected to maintain a balance between national security and individual freedoms, ensuring that the suspension is not misused.
In summary, during a National Emergency, Article 358 leads to the automatic suspension of the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), while other fundamental rights remain intact. This provision highlights the delicate balance between individual rights and the state's responsibility to maintain order during crises.
During a National Emergency, certain fundamental rights can be suspended or restricted. Article 358 specifically addresses the suspension of the right to freedom of speech and expression during such emergencies.
Key Points about Article 358:
- Scope of Suspension: Article 358 allows the government to suspend the enforcement of Article 19, which encompasses the right to freedom of speech and expression. This means that during a National Emergency, the state can impose restrictions on this fundamental right.
- Impact on Other Rights:
- Right to Equality (Article 14): This right remains unaffected during a National Emergency; it cannot be suspended.
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): This right is also not suspended under Article 358. It can only be restricted under the procedure established by law.
- Right against Exploitation (Article 23): Similar to the above rights, this right is not automatically suspended during a National Emergency.
Significance of Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- Democratic Values: The right to freedom of speech and expression is foundational to democracy. Its suspension during emergencies raises concerns about censorship and the curtailing of dissent.
- Checks and Balances: Even during an emergency, the government is expected to maintain a balance between national security and individual freedoms, ensuring that the suspension is not misused.
In summary, during a National Emergency, Article 358 leads to the automatic suspension of the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), while other fundamental rights remain intact. This provision highlights the delicate balance between individual rights and the state's responsibility to maintain order during crises.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?Statement I:Instances of National Emergency were proclaimed three times in India: in 1962, 1971, and 1975, each under different circumstances and with varying durations and implications.Statement II:President's Rule, governed by Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, is a mechanism through which the central government can take control of a state's administration in exceptional circumstances when the state machinery fails to function as per the constitutional provisions.- a)Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I.
- b)Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.
- c)Both Statement I and Statement II are correct, but Statement II does not explain Statement I.
- d)Statement I is incorrect, but Statement II is correct.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Statement I:
Instances of National Emergency were proclaimed three times in India: in 1962, 1971, and 1975, each under different circumstances and with varying durations and implications.
Statement II:
President's Rule, governed by Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, is a mechanism through which the central government can take control of a state's administration in exceptional circumstances when the state machinery fails to function as per the constitutional provisions.
a)
Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I.
b)
Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.
c)
Both Statement I and Statement II are correct, but Statement II does not explain Statement I.
d)
Statement I is incorrect, but Statement II is correct.
|
Valor Academy answered |
Statement -1 is Correct
India has experienced three instances of National Emergency:
India has experienced three instances of National Emergency:
- 1962: Declared due to external aggression by China during the Sino-Indian War.
- 1971: Declared due to external aggression by Pakistan during the Indo-Pak war leading to the liberation of Bangladesh.
- 1975: Declared on the grounds of "internal disturbance," a term later replaced with "armed rebellion" by the 44th Amendment Act.
Statement -2 is also Correct
Article 356 allows the President to impose President's Rule in a state when the constitutional machinery fails. This enables the central government to take over the legislative and executive functions of the state.
Article 356 allows the President to impose President's Rule in a state when the constitutional machinery fails. This enables the central government to take over the legislative and executive functions of the state.
While both statements are accurate, they address distinct provisions of the Constitution. National Emergency under Article 352 (as in Statement I) is unrelated to President’s Rule under Article 356 (as in Statement II). Therefore, Statement II does not explain Statement I.
Therefore,Correct Answer- Option C
Therefore,Correct Answer- Option C
Which of the following statements is/are true?(1) Critics claim that emergency provisions undermine the Fundamental Rights.(2) President becomes dictator by emergency provisions as per the critics.Choose from the following options.- a) 1 Only
- b) 2 Only
- c) Both 1 and 2
- d) Neither 1 nor 2
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Which of the following statements is/are true?
(1) Critics claim that emergency provisions undermine the Fundamental Rights.
(2) President becomes dictator by emergency provisions as per the critics.
Choose from the following options.
a)
1 Only
b)
2 Only
c)
Both 1 and 2
d)
Neither 1 nor 2
|
Vijay Kumar answered |
Some members of the Constituent Assembly criticized the incorporation of emergency provisions in the Constitution on the following grounds - (a) The federal character of the Constitution will be destroyed and the Union will become all. (b) powerful. (c) The powers of the State - both the Union and the units - will entirely be concentrated in the hands of the Union executive. (d) The President will become a dictator. (e) The financial autonomy of the state will be nullified. (f) Fundamental rights will become meaningless and, as a result, the democratic foundations of the Constitution will be destroyed. However, there were also protagonists of the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar labelled them as ‘the very life-breath of the Constitution’. Mahabir Tyagi opined that they would work as a ‘safety-valve’ and thereby help in the maintenance of the Constitution. While defending the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B. R. Ambedkar also accepted the possibility of their misuse. He observed, ‘I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes’.
Which of the following statements is incorrect regarding the application of Article 358 and Article 359 in relation to Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency?- a)Article 358 suspends only Fundamental Rights under Article 19, while Article 359 applies to a wider range of rights as specified in the Presidential Order.
- b)Article 358 automatically comes into effect during an External Emergency, while Article 359 requires a Presidential Order.
- c)Article 358 operates only during an External Emergency, while Article 359 is applicable during both External and Internal Emergencies.
- d)Article 358 applies to all Fundamental Rights, while Article 359 applies only to Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Which of the following statements is incorrect regarding the application of Article 358 and Article 359 in relation to Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency?
a)
Article 358 suspends only Fundamental Rights under Article 19, while Article 359 applies to a wider range of rights as specified in the Presidential Order.
b)
Article 358 automatically comes into effect during an External Emergency, while Article 359 requires a Presidential Order.
c)
Article 358 operates only during an External Emergency, while Article 359 is applicable during both External and Internal Emergencies.
d)
Article 358 applies to all Fundamental Rights, while Article 359 applies only to Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
|
Shail Chavan answered |
Understanding Articles 358 and 359
During a National Emergency in India, the application of Articles 358 and 359 significantly impacts Fundamental Rights. The distinction between these articles is crucial for understanding their implications.
Article 358
- Suspends the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 specifically.
- Automatically comes into effect during a National Emergency declared on the grounds of war or external aggression.
- Does not require a Presidential Order to activate its provisions.
- Only affects the rights under Article 19, which includes the right to freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
Article 359
- Allows the suspension of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as specified in the Presidential Order.
- Can be invoked during both External and Internal Emergencies.
- Has a broader scope as it can include various rights beyond those enumerated in Article 19, depending on the Presidential Order.
- Requires a specific declaration and order from the President for enforcement.
Incorrect Statement Analysis
The incorrect statement in the options provided is:
- Option 'D': Article 358 applies to all Fundamental Rights, while Article 359 applies only to Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
This statement is incorrect because:
- Article 358 only suspends rights under Article 19, not all Fundamental Rights.
- Article 359 can apply to a wider range of rights, depending on what the Presidential Order specifies.
Conclusion
Understanding the distinctions between Articles 358 and 359 is essential for comprehending the scope and limitations of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency in India.
During a National Emergency in India, the application of Articles 358 and 359 significantly impacts Fundamental Rights. The distinction between these articles is crucial for understanding their implications.
Article 358
- Suspends the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 specifically.
- Automatically comes into effect during a National Emergency declared on the grounds of war or external aggression.
- Does not require a Presidential Order to activate its provisions.
- Only affects the rights under Article 19, which includes the right to freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
Article 359
- Allows the suspension of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as specified in the Presidential Order.
- Can be invoked during both External and Internal Emergencies.
- Has a broader scope as it can include various rights beyond those enumerated in Article 19, depending on the Presidential Order.
- Requires a specific declaration and order from the President for enforcement.
Incorrect Statement Analysis
The incorrect statement in the options provided is:
- Option 'D': Article 358 applies to all Fundamental Rights, while Article 359 applies only to Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
This statement is incorrect because:
- Article 358 only suspends rights under Article 19, not all Fundamental Rights.
- Article 359 can apply to a wider range of rights, depending on what the Presidential Order specifies.
Conclusion
Understanding the distinctions between Articles 358 and 359 is essential for comprehending the scope and limitations of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency in India.
Consider the following pairs:1. National Emergency: Declared during war, external aggression, or armed rebellion2. President's Rule: Declared in response to a threat to India's financial stability or credit3. Financial Emergency: Requires a written recommendation from the cabinet4. National Emergency: Grounds include 'armed rebellion' and 'internal disturbance'How many pairs given above are correctly matched?- a)Only one pair
- b)Only two pairs
- c)Only three pairs
- d)All four pairs
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following pairs:
1. National Emergency: Declared during war, external aggression, or armed rebellion
2. President's Rule: Declared in response to a threat to India's financial stability or credit
3. Financial Emergency: Requires a written recommendation from the cabinet
4. National Emergency: Grounds include 'armed rebellion' and 'internal disturbance'
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs
|
K.L Institute answered |
1. National Emergency: Declared during war, external aggression, or armed rebellion
This is correctly matched. According to Article 352, a National Emergency can be declared during war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
2. President's Rule: Declared in response to a threat to India's financial stability or credit
This is incorrectly matched. President's Rule (Article 356) is declared due to the failure of the constitutional machinery in states, not in response to a financial threat.
3. Financial Emergency: Requires a written recommendation from the cabinet
This is incorrectly matched. Financial Emergency (Article 360) is declared in response to a threat to India's financial stability or credit, but it does not specifically require a written recommendation from the cabinet. It is the National Emergency that requires a written recommendation from the cabinet under Article 352.
4. National Emergency: Grounds include 'armed rebellion' and 'internal disturbance'
This is incorrectly matched. The original term 'internal disturbance' was replaced by 'armed rebellion' by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Hence, 'internal disturbance' is no longer a ground for declaring National Emergency.
Thus, only the first pair is correctly matched.
Consider the following statements:1. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced safeguards against the misuse of Emergency powers.2. The 1975 Emergency was proclaimed due to external aggression.3. During the operation of President's Rule, the Parliament assumes the power to legislate for the state.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)1 and 3 Only
- c)2 and 3 Only
- d)1, 2 and 3
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
1. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced safeguards against the misuse of Emergency powers.
2. The 1975 Emergency was proclaimed due to external aggression.
3. During the operation of President's Rule, the Parliament assumes the power to legislate for the state.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
1 and 3 Only
c)
2 and 3 Only
d)
1, 2 and 3
|
Upsc Toppers answered |
1. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced safeguards against the misuse of Emergency powers: This statement is correct. The 44th Amendment Act was enacted to prevent the misuse of Emergency provisions, which was a significant issue during the 1975 Emergency. It introduced several safeguards, including stricter requirements for declaring an Emergency and protecting citizens' fundamental rights.
2. The 1975 Emergency was proclaimed due to external aggression: This statement is incorrect. The 1975 Emergency was declared on the grounds of 'internal disturbance,' not external aggression. It was a controversial period marked by the suspension of civil liberties and political opposition.
3. During the operation of President's Rule, the Parliament assumes the power to legislate for the state: This statement is correct. When President's Rule is imposed under Article 356, the President can declare that the powers of the state legislature shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament. This allows the central government to legislate on behalf of the state.
Therefore, the correct statements are 1 and 3 only.
Consider the following pairs regarding the scope of judicial review and proper/improper use of President's Rule (Article 356) in India:1. Sarkaria Commission: Recommends President's Rule in case of a hung assembly after general elections.2. Bommai Case: Establishes that the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is final and not subject to judicial review.3. 44th Amendment Act of 1978: Allows for judicial review of the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356.4. Anti-secular politics by state government: Grounds for invoking President's Rule as per the Bommai case.How many pairs given above are correctly matched?- a)Only one pair
- b)Only two pairs
- c)Only three pairs
- d)All four pairs
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following pairs regarding the scope of judicial review and proper/improper use of President's Rule (Article 356) in India:
1. Sarkaria Commission: Recommends President's Rule in case of a hung assembly after general elections.
2. Bommai Case: Establishes that the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is final and not subject to judicial review.
3. 44th Amendment Act of 1978: Allows for judicial review of the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356.
4. Anti-secular politics by state government: Grounds for invoking President's Rule as per the Bommai case.
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs
|
Master Training Institute answered |
1. ✅Sarkaria Commission: Recommends President's Rule in case of a hung assembly after general elections. Correct. The Sarkaria Commission indeed recommended that President's Rule can be imposed in the case of a hung assembly.
2. ❌Bommai Case: Establishes that the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is final and not subject to judicial review. Incorrect. The Bommai Case established that the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is subject to judicial review, contrary to the statement.
3. ✅44th Amendment Act of 1978: Allows for judicial review of the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356. Correct. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 indeed allowed for judicial review of the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356.
4. ✅Anti-secular politics by state government: Grounds for invoking President's Rule as per the Bommai case. Correct. The Bommai case concluded that anti-secular activities by a state government could be grounds for invoking President's Rule, as secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Thus, pairs 1, 3, and 4 are correctly matched, while pair 2 is incorrectly matched. Therefore, the correct answer is Option C: Only three pairs.
What is a key principle established by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case (1994) regarding the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356?- a)The President's satisfaction must be based on relevant material that can be challenged if founded on irrelevant, extraneous, malafide, or perverse grounds.
- b)The Court can assess the correctness or adequacy of the material justifying President's Rule.
- c)The Court has the power to dismiss the state government without reinstating the state legislative assembly.
- d)The Centre does not bear the burden of proving the existence of relevant material justifying President's Rule.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
What is a key principle established by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case (1994) regarding the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356?
a)
The President's satisfaction must be based on relevant material that can be challenged if founded on irrelevant, extraneous, malafide, or perverse grounds.
b)
The Court can assess the correctness or adequacy of the material justifying President's Rule.
c)
The Court has the power to dismiss the state government without reinstating the state legislative assembly.
d)
The Centre does not bear the burden of proving the existence of relevant material justifying President's Rule.
|
Ias Masters answered |
In the Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court established a crucial principle regarding the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356. According to this case, the President's satisfaction in invoking Article 356 must be based on relevant material. If this satisfaction is found to be based on irrelevant, extraneous, malafide, or perverse grounds, it can be subject to challenge. This principle ensures that the President's decision to impose President's Rule is based on valid and pertinent reasons, preventing arbitrary or unjustified use of this constitutional provision.
Chapter doubts & questions for Emergency Provisions - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams 2025 is part of BPSC (Bihar) exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the BPSC (Bihar) exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for BPSC (Bihar) 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Emergency Provisions - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams in English & Hindi are available as part of BPSC (Bihar) exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for BPSC (Bihar) Exam by signing up for free.
Indian Polity for State PSC Exams
149 videos|673 docs|206 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup