This question tests knowledge of the emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution, specifically which article deals with the suspension of fundamental rights, particularly Article 19, during a National Emergency.
Correct Option: A) Article 358 deals with the automatic suspension of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 when a Proclamation of National Emergency is in force due to war or external aggression. It also states that no law or executive action can be challenged on the ground that it contravenes Article 19 during such an emergency.
This question tests knowledge of the emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution, specifically the Articles related to President's Rule and other types of emergencies. We need to identify the correct Article for President's Rule.
Correct Option: B) Article 356
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution deals with the 'Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States'. This is commonly known as President's Rule or State Emergency. It allows the President to assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State, if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The question asks to identify the specific Article of the Indian Constitution that empowers the President to declare a Financial Emergency. This requires knowledge of the emergency provisions outlined in Part XVIII of the Constitution.
Correct Option: C) Article 360 authorizes the President to proclaim a Financial Emergency if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened.
The question asks for the best explanation of local self-government. We need to analyze each option in the context of what local self-government entails and how it functions within a democratic system.
B) Democratic decentralization — Local self-government is fundamentally about transferring power and decision-making authority from central or state governments to local, elected bodies. This process empowers local communities, fosters participation, and makes governance more responsive to local needs, which is the essence of democratic decentralization.
The question asks about the maximum duration of President's Rule in a state, assuming repeated parliamentary approvals. This falls under the emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 356.
Initial Proclamation: When President's Rule is imposed, it must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue. If approved, it initially lasts for six months.
Extension: President's Rule can be extended for a further six months at a time with parliamentary approval. There is no limit to the number of times it can be extended for six months, provided the total duration does not exceed a certain maximum.
Maximum Duration: The Constitution of India (Article 356) stipulates that President's Rule cannot continue for more than three years in any case. After three years, it must terminate, and normal constitutional machinery must be restored in the state.
Exception (J&K): While the general rule is three years, there was a specific exception for Punjab (and later Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, for J&K) where it could be extended beyond three years under certain conditions, but this is an exception to the general constitutional provision.
C) 3 years — The maximum period for which President's Rule can be continued with repeated parliamentary approvals every six months is three years. This is a constitutional limit imposed by Article 356.
The question asks about the judicial body that upheld the judicial review of the President's Rule, specifically referencing the S.R. Bommai case. This requires knowledge of landmark judgments related to Indian constitutional law and the powers of judicial review.
Correct Option: B) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994), ruled that the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. This judgment significantly restricted the arbitrary use of this power by the central government.