Question Description
Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Assembly, the Progress party received a clear mandate from the electorate winning, 161 seats. The Band Bajao Party, on the other hand, won 98 seats. After the government was formed, a strong group of Progress MLAs became unhappy with their Chief Minister, Mr. Abhinav Jain, and decided to start considering BBP membership. There were public talks about how Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of this house. With the intensification of this discussion, tempers of the MLAs began to rise and arguments frequently broke out. While this argument was going on, Mr. Jain passed a few religious policies which garnered the attention of prominent human rights activists. These policies aimed at mapping the movement of people from a certain religious community, based solely on their religious identity. The activists openly registered their dissent on social media platforms on the ground that they violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. This added fuel to the allegation that Mr. Jain was unfit to be the Chief Minister.Mr. Jain requested the governor to call for a floor test. The governor refused, and recommended that Presidents rule be declared in the state under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India as Mr. Jain had lost the confidence of the house. The president decided to follow the recommendation and the state government was dissolved. Mr. Jain, aggrieved, challenged this recommendation and cited the case of S.R. Bommai which had held that a floor test was ordinarily mandatory, without being covered under the doctrine of political question. The governor had acted wrongfully by recommending the imposition of president’s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending President’s rule. He also alleged that the report of the governor was not enough for the President to make such a proclamation. The President had acted in an incorrect manner.The Constitution requires that the President be “satisfied” about the need to issue a proclamation. This satisfaction should be based on some material before him.The case is now in the Supreme Court of India. The relevant wording of Article 356(1) is as follows– “If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation…” Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questions–Q.Suppose the governor had agreed to the floor test and Mr. Jain was able to demonstrate the confidence of the House. Six months later, Mr. Jain and his government began to raid the houses of activists of a specific religion who had raised their voices against his policies. This caused an uproar in the assembly and instability. Would it then be permissible for the governor to recommend Presidents rule?a)Yes, as bypassing the kind of religious policies they had, the government had violated the ideal of secularism which is an integral to the constitution;b)Yes, as the instability in the House sufficed to implement President’s rule;c)No, as these were merely policies that could be changed later in time;d)No, as the violation of secularism was not reason enough to ask for this extraordinary course of action to be taken.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.