Static Quiz 29 August 2026 (Indian Polity)

A National Emergency must be approved by each House of Parliament by a special majority, a majority of the total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting, within one month, a safeguard against misuse inserted by the 44th Amendment. Option (a) is incorrect since the President acts on the written advice of the Cabinet, another 44th Amendment insertion meant to prevent the 1975-type misuse where the Prime Minister alone could advise, and option (b) wrongly substitutes a simple majority for the required special majority. Option (d) is incorrect since the 44th Amendment of 1978 specifically protected Articles 20 and 21 from suspension even during a National Emergency, the one absolute constitutional guarantee that survives.

Statements 1, 3 and 4 are correct, while Statement 2 is wrong. The 44th Amendment inserted the requirement that the Cabinet's recommendation be in writing, preventing verbal advice as allegedly happened in 1975, under Article 352(8), if one-tenth or more of Lok Sabha members give written notice, a special sitting must be called and the Emergency can be disapproved by a simple majority of the Lok Sabha, uniquely empowering the lower house, and India has proclaimed a National Emergency three times, in 1962 during Chinese aggression, 1971 during the Pakistani aggression and Bangladesh war, and 1975 for internal disturbance under Indira Gandhi. Renewal actually requires the same special majority rather than a simple majority, since each renewal continues the Emergency for six months but demands the identical special majority as the original proclamation.

Three of the four statements are correct. Article 360 is invoked when the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened, a broad threshold never yet invoked despite several economic crises, the President can direct reduction of salaries of all persons in Union service, including judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, an extraordinary power underscoring the provision's severity, and no Financial Emergency has ever been proclaimed in India, including during the 1991 balance of payments crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis. A Financial Emergency actually requires approval by simple majority, not special majority, within two months, unlike the National Emergency, which requires a special majority, a precise and frequently tested distinction between the two provisions.

Both A and R are correct, and R directly explains A. President's Rule normally operates for a maximum of one year, and extension beyond one year, up to a maximum of three years, requires two conditions to both hold: a National Emergency must be in operation, and the Election Commission must certify that elections cannot be held in the state. The 44th Amendment of 1978 introduced these restrictions precisely to curb rampant misuse of Article 356, which had been invoked over 50 times by 1977, frequently to dismiss opposition state governments, and this legislative history directly confirms R as the causal explanation for the restriction described in A.

Statements 1, 3 and 4 are correct, while Statement 2 states the exact opposite of the ruling. The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) nine-judge Constitution Bench held that imposition of President's Rule is justiciable and courts can examine whether Presidential satisfaction was based on relevant material, that a government's majority must be tested on the floor of the legislature, since the Governor cannot recommend President's Rule based on subjective assessments of defections or letters of support bypassing an actual floor test, and post-Bommai, use of Article 356 declined sharply from over 50 impositions in the pre-1994 era to considerably fewer, as judicial review became an enforceable check. The Court specifically ruled that Presidential satisfaction is subject to judicial scrutiny rather than immune from it, directly contradicting Statement 2's claim that it is never justiciable.