Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Questions
Filter by category, type, and difficulty. Reading is open for everyone.
Post-44th Amendment, which Fundamental Rights cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency under Article 352?
- Articles 14-18 (Right to Equality)
- Articles 19-22 (Right to Freedom)
- Articles 20-21 (Protection in conviction, Life/liberty)
- Articles 25-28 (Right to Freedom of Religion)
Answer: Articles 20-21 (Protection in conviction, Life/liberty)
Non-suspendable rights during Emergency: (a) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): Articles 20-21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency: (i) Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences (no ex-post facto law, no double jeopardy, no self-incrimination), (ii) Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, (b) Rationale: Prevent recurrence of 1975-77 Emergency excesses where habeas corpus petitions were suspended (ADM Jabalpur case); preserve core rights essential to human dignity, rule of law, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Even during Emergency, citizens can challenge detention, conviction violations under Articles 20-21, (ii) Judicial review: Courts retain power to examine whether Emergency proclamation, Presidential orders comply with constitutional limits, (d) Contrast with other rights: (i) Article 19: Automatically suspended during Emergency (Article 358), but only for laws/restrictions related to Emergency purposes, (ii) Other rights: May be suspended via Presidential order under Article 359, but subject to judicial review for constitutional compliance, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights protection: Enabling crisis response while preserving core rights essential to human dignity, rule of law; balance between national security and individual liberty.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule must comply with ______ morality, meaning Governor acts as constitutional functionary, not political agent.
- political
- Constitutional
- social
- religious
Answer: Constitutional
Constitutional morality under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition based on political considerations, not constitutional morality, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must comply with Constitutional morality: Governor acts as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (ii) Constitutional morality requires: Objective material, procedural compliance, constitutional principles compliance, not political considerations, party affiliations, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report complies with Constitutional morality, not political convenience, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating Constitutional morality, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Governor as constitutional functionary ensures Article 356 reflects genuine constitutional breakdown, not political convenience, (ii) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional morality preserves constitutional order against arbitrary power, (iii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Constitutional morality requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
The Supreme Court has held that even during a National Emergency under Article 352, judicial independence as part of basic structure cannot be suspended, meaning courts retain power to review Emergency actions for constitutional compliance.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Judicial independence during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Judicial independence part of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, courts retain power to review Emergency actions for constitutional compliance, (ii) Judicial review scope: Procedural compliance, relevance to Emergency purposes, constitutional principles compliance, (iii) Courts cannot re-appreciate material, substitute judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction, but can examine constitutional compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to examine Emergency actions for constitutional compliance, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not rights suppression, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Judicial independence preserves constitutional order against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Judicial review essential for rights protection, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Courts ensure Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Judicial independence as basic structure ensures Constitution's core identity preserved even during crisis; balance between crisis response capacity and preservation of constitutional democracy.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule should be based on democratic verification of loss of majority through:
- Media reports
- Floor test in Assembly
- Party consultations
- Public opinion polls
Answer: Floor test in Assembly
Democratic verification under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without democratic verification of loss of majority, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report should be based on democratic verification of loss of majority through floor test in Assembly, (ii) Floor test ensures elected representatives, not appointed Governor, decide government fate, (iii) Governor cannot send report based on subjective assessment, media reports, political considerations without floor test, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations without floor test, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected Assembly represents people's will; floor test ensures Ministry reflects Assembly majority, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Floor test as democratic verification ensures State governments reflect Assembly majority; judicial review protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach.
Under Article 352, the President's satisfaction for proclaiming National Emergency must be based on ______ material, and post-44th Amendment, is subject to judicial review to prevent political misuse.
- subjective
- objective
- confidential
- partisan
Answer: objective
Presidential satisfaction under Article 352: (a) Constitutional text: President may proclaim Emergency if satisfied that security of India/threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion, (b) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): (i) Satisfaction must be based on objective material, not subjective opinion or political consideration, (ii) Judicial review permitted: Courts can examine whether satisfaction based on objective material, not mala fide or political considerations, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to examine whether Emergency proclamation based on objective material, not political pretext, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency used for genuine existential threats, not political suppression, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Presidential satisfaction subject to constitutional limits, judicial oversight, (ii) Rights protection: Prevents Emergency used to suppress rights, democracy, (iii) Democratic accountability: Ensures Emergency reflects genuine crisis, not political convenience, (e) Illustrates calibrated emergency powers: Objective material requirement ensures Emergency based on genuine crisis; judicial review prevents political misuse while preserving crisis response capacity.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that judicial review of Governor's report under Article 356 includes examining whether recommended action complies with constitutional principles like secularism, democracy, federalism.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional principles compliance under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional principles, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Judicial review includes examining whether recommended action complies with constitutional principles (secularism, democracy, federalism, rule of law), (ii) State government acting against constitutional principles can justify Article 356, but action must genuinely threaten principles, not mere political disagreement, (iii) Courts examine whether action complies with basic structure, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Secularism test: State policies promoting religious discrimination can trigger Article 356, but courts examine genuine threat, not political pretext, (ii) Democracy test: Loss of majority verified through floor test, not Governor's subjective assessment, (iii) Federalism test: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Governor's report subject to constitutional limits, judicial oversight, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Constitutional principles compliance requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, financial relations between Union and States can be modified under Article 354. Which of the following modifications is permitted?
- Permanent transfer of State revenues to Union
- Temporary modification of revenue distribution approved by Parliament
- Abolition of Finance Commission
- Suspension of State budget approval process
Answer: Temporary modification of revenue distribution approved by Parliament
Financial relations modification during Emergency: (a) Article 354: During Emergency, President may modify distribution of revenues between Union and States (e.g., tax devolution, grants-in-aid), (b) Permitted modifications: (i) Temporary modification of revenue distribution (e.g., adjusting tax devolution percentages, grants-in-aid amounts), (ii) Must be approved by Parliament within specified timeframe, (iii) Ceases post-Emergency unless re-approved; federal fiscal normalcy restored, (c) NOT permitted: (i) Permanent transfer of State revenues to Union (violates federal balance), (ii) Abolition of Finance Commission (constitutional body with independent mandate), (iii) Suspension of State budget approval process (violates State legislative autonomy), (d) Rationale: Enable coordinated fiscal response to crisis (e.g., war financing, disaster relief) while preserving Parliamentary oversight, State autonomy post-crisis, (e) Applications: (i) 1962, 1971 Emergencies: Fiscal adjustments for defence spending, resource mobilization, (ii) Post-Emergency: Modifications ceased; Finance Commission recommendations resumed normal operation, (f) Illustrates calibrated fiscal federalism: Enabling coordinated fiscal response to existential threats while preserving State autonomy through Parliamentary approval, time limits, sunset provisions.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that judicial review of Governor's report under Article 356 includes examining whether procedural requirements like ______ were complied with before recommending President's Rule.
- media consultation
- floor test
- public referendum
- party consultation
Answer: floor test
Procedural compliance under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without procedural compliance in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Judicial review includes examining whether procedural requirements complied with before recommending President's Rule, (ii) Key procedural requirement: Floor test to verify majority before dismissal of Ministry, (iii) Other procedural requirements: Objective material verification, independent inquiry, consultation with Council of Ministers where possible, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations without procedural compliance, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via procedural safeguards, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Procedural compliance ensures Article 356 reflects genuine constitutional breakdown, not political convenience, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Procedural compliance requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
The Supreme Court has held that even during a National Emergency under Article 352, the rule of law as part of basic structure cannot be suspended, meaning government actions must comply with legal procedures, judicial review, even during crisis.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Rule of law during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Rule of law part of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, government actions must comply with legal procedures, judicial review, (ii) Emergency powers subject to rule of law: Actions must have legal basis, follow procedures, subject to judicial scrutiny, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions comply with legal procedures, constitutional limits, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating legal procedures, constitutional limits, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures government accountability, legal compliance, even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Rule of law preserves constitutional order against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Legal procedures, judicial review essential for rights protection, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Rule of law ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Rule of law as basic structure ensures Constitution's core identity preserved even during crisis; balance between crisis response capacity and preservation of constitutional democracy.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court distinguished between 'constitutional breakdown' and 'political instability'. Which of the following best describes 'constitutional breakdown' justifying Article 356?
- Change of government through democratic elections
- Genuine inability of State government to function in accordance with Constitution
- Disagreement between State and Union on policy matters
- Electoral defeat of ruling party in State
Answer: Genuine inability of State government to function in accordance with Constitution
Constitutional breakdown vs political instability: (a) SR Bommai distinction: (i) Constitutional breakdown: Genuine inability of State government to function in accordance with Constitution (e.g., loss of majority verified through floor test, breakdown of law and order beyond State control, action against constitutional principles), (ii) Political instability: Change of government through democratic process, policy disagreement, electoral defeat — NOT justification for Article 356, (b) Examples of constitutional breakdown: (i) Loss of majority verified through floor test, (ii) Breakdown of law and order beyond State control, (iii) Action against constitutional principles (secularism, democracy), (c) Examples NOT justifying Article 356: (i) Political instability, change of government through democratic process, (ii) Policy disagreement with Union, (iii) Electoral defeat of ruling party, (d) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations based on political instability, not genuine constitutional breakdown, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: 'Constitutional breakdown' narrowly defined to protect State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
Under Article 358, during a National Emergency, suspension of Article 19 freedoms applies only to laws/restrictions related to ______ purposes, not arbitrary restrictions unrelated to Emergency.
- political
- Emergency
- economic
- administrative
Answer: Emergency
Article 19 suspension scope during Emergency: (a) Article 358 text: During Emergency, Article 19 freedoms automatically suspended for duration of Emergency, (b) Scope limitation: (i) Applies only to laws/restrictions related to Emergency purposes (war, external aggression, armed rebellion), (ii) Does not permit arbitrary restrictions unrelated to Emergency (e.g., political suppression, censorship unrelated to crisis), (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether restrictions genuinely related to Emergency purposes, not political pretext, (c) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): Reinforced scope limitation; courts more willing to strike down restrictions unrelated to Emergency, (d) Applications: (i) 1962, 1971 Emergencies: Restrictions on speech, assembly related to defence, security, (ii) Post-1978: Courts examine whether restrictions genuinely related to Emergency, not political suppression, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights suspension: Enabling crisis response while preventing arbitrary rights suppression; balance between national security and individual liberty through scope limitation, judicial oversight.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that Governor should conduct floor test before sending report recommending President's Rule, ensuring democratic verification of loss of majority.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Floor test timing under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without floor test in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor should conduct floor test before sending report recommending President's Rule, (ii) Floor test ensures democratic verification: Elected representatives, not appointed Governor, decide government fate, (iii) Governor cannot send report based on subjective assessment, media reports, political considerations without floor test, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations without floor test, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected Assembly represents people's will; floor test ensures Ministry reflects Assembly majority, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Floor test before report ensures State governments reflect Assembly majority; judicial review protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, India's obligations under international human rights treaties:
- Are automatically suspended
- Continue to apply, and Emergency measures must comply with international law principles of necessity, proportionality
- Are replaced by domestic emergency laws
- Apply only to Union government, not State governments
Answer: Continue to apply, and Emergency measures must comply with international law principles of necessity, proportionality
International law during Emergency: (a) Constitutional principle: India's international obligations continue during Emergency; domestic law interpreted to comply with international law where possible, (b) International human rights law: (i) Treaties like ICCPR permit derogation from certain rights during public emergency, but core rights (life, prohibition of torture) non-derogable, (ii) Principles of necessity, proportionality: Emergency measures must be necessary for crisis response, proportionate to threat, (iii) Judicial interpretation: Indian courts increasingly refer to international law principles in interpreting constitutional provisions, including Emergency powers, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts examine whether Emergency measures comply with international law principles of necessity, proportionality, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency measures respect core human rights, even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: International law informs constitutional interpretation, especially for rights protection, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: India's international commitments reflect democratic consensus on human rights, (iii) Global accountability: Compliance with international law enhances India's global standing, democratic credibility, (e) Illustrates constitutional internationalism: International law principles inform Emergency powers interpretation; balance between crisis response capacity and human rights protection through necessity, proportionality principles.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule should be based on material verified through ______ sources, not just unverified media reports or political considerations.
- subjective
- independent
- partisan
- confidential
Answer: independent
Independent verification of Governor's report: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition based on unverified reports, political considerations, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must be based on objective material verified through independent sources (e.g., Assembly proceedings, independent inquiries, not just media reports), (ii) Cannot be based on: Unverified media reports, political considerations, subjective assessments, party affiliations, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether report based on independently verified material, not political considerations, (c) Applications: (i) Rameshwar Prasad (2006): Struck down Bihar Assembly dissolution based on unverified media reports, political considerations, (ii) Recent Governor cases (2022-2024): Reiterated objective standards, independent verification requirement, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine political tool, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Independent verification requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, Fundamental Duties under Article 51A continue to apply, reminding citizens of responsibilities towards nation, democracy, and constitutional values even during crisis.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Fundamental Duties during Emergency: (a) Constitutional provision: Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) inserted by 42nd Amendment (1976), not suspended during Emergency, (b) Application during Emergency: (i) Fundamental Duties continue to apply: Citizens reminded of responsibilities to uphold Constitution, promote harmony, defend country, preserve heritage, (ii) Complementary to rights: Duties remind citizens that rights entail responsibilities, especially during crisis, (iii) Democratic culture: Duties foster constitutional culture, civic responsibility, even during Emergency, (c) Rationale: (i) Constitutional morality: Duties reinforce constitutional values, democratic culture, even during crisis, (ii) Civic responsibility: Citizens reminded of role in preserving democracy, constitutional order, (iii) Balanced governance: Rights protected, duties reminded; balance between individual liberty, collective responsibility, (d) Applications: (i) Post-1976: Fundamental Duties invoked in cases involving national integrity, communal harmony, even during crisis situations, (ii) Civic education: Duties used to promote constitutional values, democratic participation, (e) Illustrates constitutional culture: Fundamental Duties reinforce constitutional values, civic responsibility, even during Emergency; balance between rights protection, duty reminder fosters democratic culture.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that secularism is part of the basic structure. Which of the following political party actions would likely violate secularism and justify Article 356?
- Party manifesto promising economic reforms
- Party using religious symbols for electoral mobilization in violation of election laws
- Party criticizing Union government policies
- Party forming coalition with regional parties
Answer: Party using religious symbols for electoral mobilization in violation of election laws
Secularism and political parties under SR Bommai: (a) SR Bommai holding: Secularism part of basic structure; State government acting against secularism can justify Article 356, (b) Political party actions violating secularism: (i) Using religious symbols for electoral mobilization in violation of election laws (e.g., R.P. Act provisions against appeal to religion), (ii) Promoting communal violence, religious discrimination through official policy, (iii) Enacting laws discriminating based on religion (violates Articles 14, 15, 25-28), (c) Actions NOT violating secularism: (i) Economic policy promises (policy domain within State competence), (ii) Criticizing Union policies (democratic dissent protected), (iii) Forming coalitions (normal political practice), (d) Judicial scrutiny: Courts examine whether action genuinely threatens constitutional secularism, not mere political disagreement or policy difference, (e) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to uphold Article 356 for genuine secularism violations, strike down for political pretext, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (f) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Secularism as basic structure enables Union to preserve constitutional order; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine threats, not political convenience.
Under Article 352, a National Emergency approved by Parliament continues for ______ months unless renewed by Parliamentary resolution, ensuring periodic democratic review.
- 3
- 6
- 9
- 12
Answer: 6
Emergency duration and renewal: (a) Constitutional text: If approved by Parliament, Emergency continues for 6 months, (b) Renewal mechanism: Can be extended indefinitely by Parliamentary resolution every 6 months, (c) 44th Amendment safeguards (1978): (i) Special majority required for approval/renewal, (ii) One-tenth of Lok Sabha members can requisition special meeting to consider revocation, (iii) Prevents indefinite Emergency without ongoing democratic consent, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic oversight: Periodic renewal ensures Emergency reflects ongoing democratic consensus, not executive whim, (ii) Political accountability: Government must justify Emergency continuation to Parliament, people, (iii) Prevent misuse: Prevents ruling party from imposing indefinite Emergency without broad support, (e) Applications: (i) Post-1978: No National Emergency proclaimed, reflecting effectiveness of safeguards, (ii) Political accountability: Enhances democratic legitimacy of Emergency measures, (f) Illustrates democratic oversight: Periodic renewal ensures Emergency subject to continuous democratic scrutiny; balance between crisis response capacity and prevention of political misuse.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that Governor's report recommending President's Rule cannot be based on political considerations, party affiliations, or subjective assessments, but must be based on objective material of constitutional breakdown.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Objective material requirement under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition based on political considerations, not genuine constitutional breakdown, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must be based on objective material of constitutional breakdown (e.g., loss of majority verified through floor test, breakdown of law and order), (ii) Cannot be based on: Political considerations, party affiliations, subjective assessments, unverified media reports, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether report based on objective material, not political considerations, (c) Applications: (i) Rameshwar Prasad (2006): Struck down Bihar Assembly dissolution based on unverified media reports, political considerations, (ii) Recent Governor cases (2022-2024): Reiterated objective standards, struck down politically motivated Article 356 invocations, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine political tool, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Objective material requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, the federal structure of the Constitution:
- Is permanently converted to unitary system
- Temporarily acquires unitary features but reverts to federal structure post-Emergency
- Is suspended entirely until Emergency ceases
- Is replaced by military administration
Answer: Temporarily acquires unitary features but reverts to federal structure post-Emergency
Federalism during Emergency: (a) Constitutional design: Indian federalism has unitary bias; Emergency provisions enable temporary unitary features for crisis management, (b) Temporary unitary features during Emergency: (i) Legislative: Parliament can legislate on State List (Article 250), (ii) Executive: Union can give directions to States on manner of executive power exercise (Article 353), (iii) Financial: President can modify revenue distribution (Article 354), (c) Post-Emergency restoration: (i) Parliament's laws on State List cease after 6 months, (ii) State executive resumes full autonomy, (iii) Federal fiscal normalcy restored, (d) Rationale: Ensure unified national response to existential threats while preserving federal structure for post-crisis governance, (e) Applications: (i) 1962, 1971 Emergencies: Temporary unitary features for defence coordination, post-Emergency federal normalcy restored, (ii) Federal balance: Emergency powers enable crisis response without permanent centralization, (f) Illustrates adaptive federalism: Temporary unitary features for crisis management within constitutional framework; balance between national security and State autonomy through time limits, sunset provisions.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that if a proclamation under Article 356 is struck down by courts, the State Assembly can be revived with the ______ restored, protecting democratic mandate against arbitrary deprivation.
- Governor
- Ministry
- Administrator
- President
Answer: Ministry
SR Bommai Ministry revival safeguard: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule with Assembly dissolution in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) If proclamation under Article 356 struck down by court, State Assembly can be revived with Ministry restored, (ii) Dissolution not automatic; extreme step requiring genuine justification, (iii) Floor test primary method to test majority before dissolution considered, (c) Rationale: (i) Democratic mandate: Elected Assembly represents people's will; revival protects democratic mandate against arbitrary deprivation, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach, (iii) Constitutional morality: Governor, President act as constitutional functionaries, not political agents, (d) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to revive Assemblies if proclamation invalidated, (ii) Political accountability: Governments must justify dissolution with objective material, not political convenience, (e) Illustrates democratic federalism: Ministry revival safeguard ensures State executive autonomy protected; judicial review prevents arbitrary deprivation of democratic mandate.