Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288andndash;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 presidentandrsquo;s rule without conducting the floor test. He further argued that the governor should have tried to remedy the situation instead of recommending Presidentandrsquo;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 andldquo;satisfiedandrdquo; 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 followsandndash; andldquo;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 Proclamationandhellip;andrdquo; Based on this fact scenario, answer the following questionsandndash;Q.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will andndash;a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 2...

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 President‟s 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. Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –

a)
Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.
b)
Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make a determination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.
c)
Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.
d)
None of the above.

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Paragraph:On the October 21 election to the 288–member State Ass...

As per the mandate of law stipulated under Article 356 referred to above, President can make proclamation on the report of Governor. It is for the Court to examine / review the report to see as to whether any other solution expect the one exercised by the president could be possible from the contents of report.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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?

View answer

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.The governor argued that he has the power to decide whether the chief minister has lost the confidence of the government, and could he could do so in his chambers in these circumstance. The Court will –

View answer

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.Based on your reading of Article 356, Presidents rule should be looked at –

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked Top Secret. Referring to the prime ministers discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to Indias internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aides opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the presidents secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime ministers proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the presidents personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracys Turning Point by Gyan Prakash, available now through Penguin Random House India.]Q.What inference can be drawn from the passage regarding the request for the Emergency proclamation?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked Top Secret. Referring to the prime ministers discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to Indias internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aides opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the presidents secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime ministers proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the presidents personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.Q.Why does the author state that the late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Mr. Jain has alleged that the President has behaved incorrectly as he relied on just a report. The Court will –a)Examine the contents of the report and decide if the President should have taken another course of action.b)Clarify if there existed any relevant material before the President to make adetermination. If such material was present, the Court will not delve deeper into the question.c)Examine if in addition to the report, there was other material the President had relied on. In the absence of this additional material, the court will hold the reliance on just one report to be insufficient.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam