Laxmikanth Test : Emergency Provisions - UPSC MCQ

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.

Statement-I correctly reflects the provision that during a National Emergency in India, the President can indeed exercise the power to declare the emergency in the face of imminent danger. This is a valid provision as outlined in the Indian Constitution under Article 352.

However, Statement-II is incorrect. The geographical scope of a National Emergency proclamation in India is not limited to applying only to the entire country. In fact, as per the Constitution, a National Emergency proclamation can apply to the entire country or a specified part of it. This provision allows for a more targeted response to specific situations where a localized emergency might require attention, rather than imposing emergency measures nationwide.

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 B: Only two pairs.

Answer: b. 44th Amendment Act

Explanation: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 amended the Constitution to require a written recommendation from the Union Cabinet for the President's proclamation of a National Emergency, ensuring collective decision-making.

- Article 358 specifically applies to the suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency caused by external aggression or war.
- Article 359 allows the President to suspend the right to enforce any Fundamental Rights, but not the rights themselves, through a Presidential Order during any type of emergency.
- The statement D is incorrect because Article 359 does not apply to all Fundamental Rights, articles 20 and 21 are the exception. The 44th Amendment Act mandates that the President cannot suspend the right to move the court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 20 and 21.

Answer: b. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)

Explanation: Article 358 suspends the operation of Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) during a National Emergency declared due to external aggression or war.

Statement-I states that during a National Emergency in India, Article 358 automatically suspends the Fundamental Rights under Article 19. This is accurate as Article 358 does indeed suspend these rights during a National Emergency.

However, Statement-II claims that 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. This statement is incorrect. Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty and is not subject to suspension during a National Emergency. Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be suspended even during an Emergency. Therefore, Statement-II is incorrect, making option c the correct answer.

• 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.

1. Article 358: Suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during National Emergency - Correct. Article 358 provides for the suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 during a National Emergency.

2. Article 359: Suspension of Fundamental Rights under Articles 20 and 21 during National Emergency - Incorrect. Article 359 allows the President to suspend the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights except those guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 during a National Emergency.

3. Article 360: Financial Emergency declaration and consequences - Correct. Article 360 deals with the declaration of a Financial Emergency and its consequences.

4. Article 352: Declaration of National Emergency due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion - Correct. Article 352 provides for the declaration of National Emergency due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.

Thus, pairs 1, 3, and 4 are correctly matched, while pair 2 is incorrectly matched.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

Let's analyze each statement:

• Statement I: This is correct. India has indeed experienced three instances of National Emergency:

  • 1962: Due to the Indo-China war.
  • 1971: During the Indo-Pak war.
  • 1975: Declared by Indira Gandhi due to internal disturbances.

• Statement II: This is also correct. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution allows for President's Rule in a state if the President believes that the state government is not functioning according to the provisions of the Constitution.

However, Statement II does not directly explain Statement I. Statement I deals with National Emergency (Article 352), while Statement II discusses President's Rule (Article 356), which are different provisions in the Constitution.

Correct Answer:

3. Both Statement I and Statement II are correct, but Statement II does not explain Statement I.