Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizPolity – True/False – GK Questions
Free practice for SSC, UPSC, Banking & Railway exams. No login required.
The Supreme Court has held that even during a National Emergency under Article 352, constitutional culture (values of democracy, rule of law, rights protection) must be preserved, meaning Emergency powers must be exercised in accordance with constitutional values, not political considerations.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional culture during Emergency: (a) Constitutional principle: Constitutional culture (values of democracy, rule of law, rights protection, federalism) must guide all government actions, including during Emergency, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, constitutional culture must be preserved: Government actions must respect democratic values, federal balance, rights protection, (ii) Emergency powers subject to constitutional culture: Actions must comply with constitutional values, not political considerations, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions comply with constitutional culture, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating constitutional culture, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not political suppression, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional culture preserves constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Constitutional culture essential for rights protection, democratic governance, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Constitutional culture ensures Constitution's core values 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 must preserve constitutional identity by respecting basic structure principles like secularism, democracy, federalism.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional identity under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional identity, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must preserve constitutional identity by respecting basic structure principles (secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity), (ii) State government acting against basic structure principles can justify Article 356, but action must genuinely threaten principles, not mere political disagreement, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report preserves constitutional identity, 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: Constitutional identity preserves constitutional order against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (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 identity 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, separation of powers as part of basic structure cannot be suspended, meaning executive, legislative, judicial functions remain distinct, with judicial review of Emergency actions permitted.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Separation of powers during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Separation of powers part of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, separation of powers maintained: Executive, legislative, judicial functions remain distinct, (ii) Judicial review permitted: Courts retain power to review Emergency actions for constitutional compliance, (iii) Limits on executive power: Emergency powers subject to legislative approval, judicial review, not unlimited executive discretion, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to examine Emergency actions for separation of powers compliance, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary executive power, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Separation of powers preserves constitutional order against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Separation of powers essential for rights protection, democratic governance, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Separation of powers 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 must ensure democratic legitimacy by verifying loss of majority through floor test, not subjective assessments.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Democratic legitimacy 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 must ensure democratic legitimacy by verifying 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 democratic verification, (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: Democratic legitimacy requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but such amendments cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, per Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional amendments during Emergency: (a) Constitutional principle: Parliament can amend Constitution under Article 368 even during Emergency, but basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) limits amendment power, (b) Basic structure limitation: (i) Even during Emergency, amendments cannot destroy basic structure features (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity), (ii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether amendments comply with basic structure, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1973: Courts more willing to strike down amendments violating basic structure, even during Emergency, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures core constitutional features preserved even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Basic structure preserves constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Core features essential for rights protection, democratic governance, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not constitutional alteration, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Basic structure doctrine 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 held that Governor's report recommending President's Rule cannot violate basic structure principles like secularism, democracy, federalism, and such violations can justify judicial intervention.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Basic structure compliance under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating basic structure principles, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report cannot violate basic structure principles (secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity), (ii) State government acting against basic structure principles can justify Article 356, but action must genuinely threaten principles, not mere political disagreement, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether report 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: Basic structure preserves constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (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: Basic structure 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, 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 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.
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 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, 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 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.
Post-44th Amendment, courts can examine whether Presidential orders suspending Fundamental Rights under Article 359 during Emergency comply with constitutional limits, including non-suspension of Articles 20-21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Judicial review of rights suspension during Emergency: (a) Pre-44th Amendment: Limited judicial review of Presidential orders suspending rights under Article 359, (b) Post-44th Amendment safeguards (1978): (i) Articles 20-21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency, (ii) Courts can examine whether Presidential orders comply with constitutional limits, including non-suspension of Articles 20-21, (iii) Judicial review scope: Procedural compliance, relevance to Emergency purposes, constitutional principles compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Presidential orders suspending non-suspendable rights, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures core rights (Articles 20-21) protected even during Emergency, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Presidential orders subject to constitutional limits, judicial oversight, (ii) Rights protection: Core rights essential for human dignity, rule of law, even during crisis, (iii) Democratic accountability: Courts ensure Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not rights suppression, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights protection: Enabling crisis response while preserving core rights; judicial review ensures Emergency powers comply with constitutional limits, not arbitrary rights suppression.
Before SR Bommai (1994), Article 356 was frequently used for political purposes (over 100 times), but post-SR Bommai safeguards have significantly reduced political misuse by requiring objective material, floor test, and judicial review.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Article 356 political misuse and SR Bommai impact: (a) Pre-SR Bommai era: Article 356 used over 100 times, often for political purposes (dismissing opposition State governments), (b) SR Bommai safeguards (1994): (i) Objective material requirement: Governor's report must be based on verified facts, not subjective opinion, (ii) Floor test principle: Majority tested on Assembly floor, not Governor's assessment, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether proclamation based on objective material, not political considerations, (iv) Assembly revival: If proclamation struck down, Assembly can be revived with Ministry restored, (c) Post-SR Bommai impact: (i) Reduced political misuse: Governments more cautious in recommending President's Rule; courts more willing to strike down politically motivated proclamations, (ii) Federal balance: Strengthened State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Enhanced public trust in federal governance, (d) Applications: (i) Recent Governor cases (2022-2024): Courts reiterate SR Bommai principles, strike down politically motivated Article 356 invocations, (ii) Political accountability: Governments must justify Article 356 with objective material, not political convenience, (e) Illustrates constitutional learning: SR Bommai represents institutional learning from political misuse of Article 356; safeguards balance Union's duty to preserve constitutional order with State autonomy, democratic mandate.
The Supreme Court has held that even during a National Emergency under Article 352, the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed, meaning amendments or actions during Emergency cannot alter core features like democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Emergency and basic structure doctrine: (a) Constitutional principle: Basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) holds that Parliament cannot amend Constitution to destroy core features (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity), (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, basic structure cannot be destroyed; Emergency powers subject to basic structure limits, (ii) Actions during Emergency (legislation, executive orders) cannot alter core constitutional features, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions comply with basic structure, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Emergency actions subject to basic structure review; courts strike down actions violating core features, (ii) Federal balance: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not destruction of constitutional identity, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Basic structure preserves constitutional identity against transient majorities, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Core features essential for rights protection, democratic governance, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Emergency powers enable crisis response but cannot alter foundational constitutional values, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Basic structure doctrine 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 held that the Governor's report recommending President's Rule is not final and can be examined by courts for objective material, procedural compliance, and constitutional principles compliance.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Judicial review of Governor's report: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition based on Governor's reports in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report not final; subject to judicial review, (ii) Courts can examine: (a) Whether report based on objective material, not subjective opinion, (b) Procedural compliance (e.g., floor test conducted), (c) Constitutional principles compliance (e.g., secularism, democracy), (iii) Courts cannot re-appreciate material, substitute judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction, (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, judicial review scope, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Governor's report subject to constitutional limits, judicial oversight, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Judicial review of Governor's report protects State autonomy; courts ensure constitutional compliance without usurping executive discretion.
Under Article 352, the President can proclaim a National Emergency only on the written advice of the Cabinet, not on the advice of the Prime Minister alone, per the 44th Amendment safeguard.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Cabinet advice requirement for Emergency: (a) Pre-44th Amendment: President could proclaim Emergency on advice of Prime Minister alone, (b) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): President can proclaim Emergency only on written advice of Cabinet (Council of Ministers), not PM alone, (c) Rationale: (i) Collective responsibility: Ensures Emergency decision reflects collective Cabinet wisdom, not individual Prime Minister's discretion, (ii) Democratic accountability: Cabinet collectively accountable to Parliament for Emergency decision, (iii) Prevent misuse: Prevents Prime Minister from imposing Emergency for political ends without Cabinet consensus, (d) Applications: (i) Post-1978: No National Emergency proclaimed, reflecting effectiveness of safeguards, (ii) Political accountability: Cabinet must justify Emergency to Parliament, people, enhancing democratic legitimacy, (e) Illustrates calibrated emergency powers: Cabinet advice requirement ensures Emergency reflects collective executive wisdom; balance between crisis response capacity and prevention of political misuse.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that judicial review of Article 356 proclamation is limited to examining whether satisfaction was based on objective material, not re-appreciating the material or substituting judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Judicial review scope under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Judicial review permitted: Courts can examine whether Presidential satisfaction based on objective material, not mala fide or political considerations, (ii) Limited scope: Courts cannot re-appreciate material, substitute judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction; review limited to procedural compliance, relevance of material, constitutional principles compliance, (iii) Floor test principle: Courts can examine whether floor test conducted, results respected, as objective verification of majority, (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, limited judicial review scope, (d) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts respect executive/legislative domain while ensuring constitutional compliance, (ii) Federal balance: Judicial review protects State autonomy without usurping Presidential discretion, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial review: Courts guard constitutional boundaries without substituting policy judgment; balance between judicial oversight and executive discretion in federal crises.
Under Article 358, during a National Emergency, Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (freedoms of speech, assembly, etc.) are automatically suspended for the duration of Emergency, without requiring separate Presidential order.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Article 19 automatic suspension: (a) Article 358 text: During Emergency, Article 19 freedoms automatically suspended for duration of Emergency, (b) Key features: (i) Automatic suspension: No separate Presidential order required (unlike Article 359 for other rights), (ii) Scope: Applies only to laws/restrictions related to Emergency purposes (war, external aggression, armed rebellion), (iii) Duration: Suspension lasts for Emergency duration; Article 19 freedoms automatically restored post-Emergency, (c) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): Suspension applies only to laws/restrictions related to Emergency; unrelated restrictions remain subject to judicial review, (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 cannot dismiss a State Ministry without testing majority on Assembly floor through floor test, ensuring democratic verification of loss of majority.
- True
- False
Answer: True
SR Bommai floor test requirement: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without floor test in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Floor test primary method to test whether Ministry enjoys majority support in Assembly, (ii) Governor cannot dismiss Ministry based on subjective assessment, media reports, political considerations without floor test, (iii) Floor test ensures democratic verification: Elected representatives, not appointed Governor, decide government fate, (c) Applications: (i) Hung Assembly scenarios: Governor must invite leader most likely to command majority, verify through floor test, (ii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether floor test conducted fairly, results respected, (iii) 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 standard ensures State governments reflect Assembly majority; judicial review protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach.