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.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule must promote constitutional resilience by preserving core constitutional features even during crisis.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional resilience under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional resilience, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must promote constitutional resilience: Preserving core constitutional features (basic structure) even during crisis, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report promotes constitutional resilience, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating constitutional resilience, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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: Constitutional resilience requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, which of the following best describes the preservation of constitutional identity?
- Constitutional identity suspended during Emergency
- Core constitutional features like basic structure preserved even during Emergency
- Constitutional identity applies only to Union government, not State governments
- Constitutional identity replaced by emergency powers
Answer: Core constitutional features like basic structure preserved even during Emergency
Constitutional identity during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Core constitutional features (basic structure) cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, even during Emergency, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, constitutional identity preserved: Core features (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity) cannot be destroyed, (ii) Emergency powers subject to constitutional identity: Actions cannot alter core constitutional features, even during crisis, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions preserve constitutional identity, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating constitutional identity, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures core constitutional features preserved even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional identity preserves constitutional order 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 emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule must maintain constitutional balance by protecting ______ autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order.
- Union
- State
- local
- judicial
Answer: State
Constitutional balance under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional balance, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must maintain constitutional balance: Protecting State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report maintains constitutional balance, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating constitutional balance, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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: Constitutional balance 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, constitutional democracy must be preserved, meaning democratic processes, rights protection, federal balance cannot be suspended, ensuring Constitution's democratic identity preserved even during crisis.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional democracy during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Constitutional democracy (democratic processes, rights protection, federal balance) part of basic structure; cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, constitutional democracy preserved: Democratic processes, rights protection, federal balance cannot be suspended, (ii) Emergency powers subject to constitutional democracy: Actions must comply with democratic values, federal balance, rights protection, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions preserve constitutional democracy, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating constitutional democracy, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures democratic processes, rights protection preserved even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional democracy preserves constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Democratic processes, rights protection essential for democratic governance, even during Emergency, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates constitutional resilience: Constitutional democracy 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 promote constitutional federalism by:
- Prioritizing Union control over State governance
- Protecting State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order
- Abolishing State legislative powers permanently
- Transferring State executive powers to Union permanently
Answer: Protecting State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order
Constitutional federalism under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional federalism, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must promote constitutional federalism: Protecting State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report promotes constitutional federalism, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating constitutional federalism, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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: Constitutional federalism 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, constitutional resilience must be preserved, meaning core constitutional features like basic structure cannot be destroyed, ensuring Constitution's identity preserved even during crisis.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional resilience during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Core constitutional features (basic structure) cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, even during Emergency, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, constitutional resilience preserved: Core features (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity) cannot be destroyed, (ii) Emergency powers subject to constitutional resilience: Actions cannot alter core constitutional features, even during crisis, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions preserve constitutional resilience, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating constitutional resilience, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures core constitutional features preserved even during crisis, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional resilience 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 emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule must promote democratic federalism by protecting State autonomy unless genuine constitutional breakdown occurs.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Democratic federalism under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating democratic federalism, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must promote democratic federalism: State autonomy protected unless genuine constitutional breakdown occurs, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report promotes democratic federalism, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating democratic federalism, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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 federalism requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, government actions must comply with constitutional values. Which of the following best describes this compliance requirement?
- Constitutional values suspended during Emergency
- Government actions must respect constitutional values like democracy, secularism, federalism, even during Emergency
- Constitutional values apply only to Union government, not State governments
- Constitutional values replaced by emergency powers
Answer: Government actions must respect constitutional values like democracy, secularism, federalism, even during Emergency
Constitutional values during Emergency: (a) Basic structure doctrine: Constitutional values (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, dignity) part of basic structure; cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, government actions must respect constitutional values, (ii) Emergency powers subject to constitutional values: Actions must comply with democratic values, federal balance, rights protection, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions comply with constitutional values, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating constitutional values, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not political suppression, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional values preserve constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Constitutional values 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 values ensure 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 comply with constitutional safeguards like objective material, floor test, and ______ review, ensuring Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown.
- political
- judicial
- administrative
- executive
Answer: judicial
Constitutional safeguards under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without constitutional safeguards in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must comply with constitutional safeguards: Objective material, floor test, judicial review, (ii) Constitutional safeguards ensure: Democratic verification, objective material, constitutional principles compliance, not political considerations, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether safeguards complied with, not just substantive outcome, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations without constitutional safeguards, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via constitutional safeguards, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Constitutional safeguards ensure 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: Constitutional safeguards 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, 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 judicial review of Governor's report under Article 356 is limited to examining constitutional compliance, not:
- Re-appreciating material or substituting judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction
- Examining procedural compliance
- Examining relevance of material to constitutional breakdown
- Examining constitutional principles compliance
Answer: Re-appreciating material or substituting judicial wisdom for Presidential satisfaction
Judicial restraint under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to scope of judicial review of Governor's report under Article 356, (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, but did not re-appreciate material, (ii) Recent Governor cases (2022-2024): Reiterated limited judicial review scope, objective standards, (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 352, a National Emergency proclamation must be approved by Parliament within 1 month, and can be revoked by Lok Sabha passing a resolution by ______ majority, ensuring continuous democratic oversight.
- simple
- special
- two-thirds
- unanimous
Answer: simple
Democratic oversight of Emergency: (a) Constitutional provision: Emergency can be revoked by Lok Sabha passing resolution by simple majority, (b) 44th Amendment safeguard (1978): One-tenth of Lok Sabha members can requisition special meeting to consider revocation resolution, (c) Rationale: (i) Democratic oversight: Enable legislative check on Emergency continuation; prevent executive from perpetuating Emergency without Parliamentary consent, (ii) Political accountability: Government must justify Emergency continuation to Parliament, people, (iii) Prevent misuse: Prevents ruling party from imposing indefinite Emergency without broad support, (d) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Mechanism ensures Emergency reflects ongoing democratic consensus, not executive whim, (ii) Political accountability: Enhances democratic legitimacy of Emergency measures, (e) Illustrates democratic oversight: Revocation mechanism 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 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.
During a National Emergency under Article 352, government actions must comply with rule of law principles. Which of the following best describes this compliance requirement?
- Government actions need not follow legal procedures during Emergency
- Government actions must have legal basis, follow procedures, subject to judicial review, even during Emergency
- Rule of law applies only to Union government, not State governments
- Rule of law suspended during Emergency
Answer: Government actions must have legal basis, follow procedures, subject to judicial review, even during Emergency
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 have legal basis, follow procedures, subject to judicial review, (ii) Emergency powers subject to rule of law: Actions must have legal authorization, follow prescribed 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's report recommending President's Rule must comply with procedural safeguards like ______, ensuring democratic verification before recommending constitutional breakdown.
- media consultation
- floor test
- public referendum
- party consultation
Answer: floor test
Procedural safeguards under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition without procedural safeguards in multiple States, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must comply with procedural safeguards like floor test to verify majority before recommending President's Rule, (ii) Procedural safeguards ensure: Democratic verification, objective material, constitutional principles compliance, not political considerations, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether procedural safeguards complied with, not just substantive outcome, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations without procedural safeguards, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via procedural safeguards, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Procedural safeguards ensure 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 safeguards 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 respect federal autonomy by:
- Prioritizing Union control over State governance
- Protecting State autonomy unless genuine constitutional breakdown occurs
- Abolishing State legislative powers permanently
- Transferring State executive powers to Union permanently
Answer: Protecting State autonomy unless genuine constitutional breakdown occurs
Federal autonomy under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating federal autonomy, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must respect federal autonomy: State autonomy protected unless genuine constitutional breakdown occurs, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report respects federal autonomy, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating federal autonomy, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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: Federal autonomy 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, Constitutional morality must guide government actions, meaning Emergency powers must be exercised in accordance with constitutional values, not political considerations.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional morality during Emergency: (a) Constitutional principle: Constitutional morality (values of Constitution: democracy, secularism, federalism, rule of law, dignity) must guide all government actions, including during Emergency, (b) Application to Emergency: (i) Even during Emergency, government actions must comply with Constitutional morality, not political considerations, (ii) Emergency powers subject to Constitutional morality: Actions must respect democratic values, federal balance, rights protection, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether Emergency actions comply with Constitutional morality, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1978: Courts more willing to strike down Emergency actions violating Constitutional morality, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures Emergency powers used for genuine crisis response, not political suppression, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitutional morality preserves constitutional identity against arbitrary power, even during crisis, (ii) Rights protection: Constitutional morality 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 morality 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 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, India's obligations under international human rights law:
- Are automatically suspended
- Continue to apply, and derogations must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination
- Apply only to Union government, not State governments
- Are replaced by domestic emergency laws
Answer: Continue to apply, and derogations must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination
International human rights 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, non-discrimination: Emergency measures must be necessary for crisis response, proportionate to threat, non-discriminatory, (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, non-discrimination, (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, non-discrimination principles.