UPSC IAS / IPS - MCQ Practice Questions

# Presidential Powers Under the Indian Constitution

The President of India has certain powers that can be exercised independently, while most executive powers require the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as per Article 74.

Step 1: Understanding Constitutional Framework

Article 74 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the President shall exercise executive functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. However, Article 143 and other provisions recognize certain discretionary powers vested solely with the President.

Step 2: Analyzing Each Option

The correct answer is (D) discretionary powers, as these are the only powers the President can exercise independently without mandatory Council of Ministers' advice.

This question tests knowledge of the jurisdiction, powers, and appointment procedures of the Supreme Court of India as per the Constitution.

Statement 1: Original jurisdiction in cases between Union and States - CORRECT

Article 131 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and States, or between States themselves. This is a fundamental constitutional power.

Statement 2: Power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) - CORRECT

Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. These five writs—Habeas Corpus (against unlawful detention), Mandamus (to compel performance of duty), Prohibition (to restrain lower courts), Certiorari (to quash orders), and Quo Warranto (to challenge authority)—are all recognized writs that the Supreme Court can issue.

Statement 3: Chief Justice appointed by President on recommendation of outgoing Chief Justice - INCORRECT

The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President, but the recommendation comes from the incumbent Chief Justice (not the outgoing one specifically), and the process involves consultation with the government. While the senior-most judge typically becomes Chief Justice, this is not a formal recommendation requirement in all cases.

**Statement 4:

This question tests knowledge of the President's emergency powers under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, specifically regarding National Emergency declarations and their constitutional effects.

Step 1: Analyze Statement A - Grounds for National Emergency

Article 352 specifies that National Emergency can be declared only on three grounds: war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. This statement is CORRECT as it accurately reflects the constitutional provision.

Step 2: Analyze Statement B - Presidential Authority Without Prior Approval

The President can declare a National Emergency without seeking Parliament's prior approval—this is an executive prerogative. However, the declaration must be approved by Parliament within 2 months. This statement is CORRECT regarding the absence of prior approval requirement.

Step 3: Analyze Statements C and D - Parliamentary Approval and Fundamental Rights

Statement C is CORRECT: Once declared, National Emergency requires Parliament's approval within 2 months (later amended to 30 days in some cases). Statement D is INCORRECT because Article 352 does not automatically suspend Fundamental Rights under Article 19. Only Articles 19, 20, and 21 can be suspended, and Article 19 requires a specific declaration under Article 359, not automatic suspension merely by declaring National Emergency.

**The correct answer is (D) because National Emergency does not automatically suspend Fundamental Rights under Article 19—suspension requires an additional declaration under Article 359

This question asks about the constitutional limitations on the amendment procedure under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.

The Indian Constitution can be amended through Article 368, but the Supreme Court has established that certain fundamental features cannot be amended, even through the prescribed amendment procedure. This doctrine is known as the "Basic Structure Doctrine."

In the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that while Article 368 grants broad amendment powers, amendments cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The federal structure—which divides powers between the Union and States and guarantees the autonomy of states—is considered a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended away.

In contrast, the Preamble (amended in 1976), the structure of the Supreme Court (modified several times), and Fundamental Duties (added in 1976 itself) have all been successfully amended, proving they are not part of the unamendable basic structure.

The federal structure of the Constitution cannot be amended even through the prescribed amendment procedure under Article 368, as established by the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Article 358 and 359 deal with suspension of Fundamental Rights during emergency.

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) cannot be suspended even during National Emergency.

Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) can be suspended.

Articles 14-16 (equality rights) generally cannot be suspended.

The President has power to suspend rights but Article 21 is protected.

During National Emergency declared under Article 352, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended (Article 358).

Article 20 protects against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy.

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.

Article 19 (freedoms) can be suspended during emergency.

Article 14 (equality) is generally protected but Article 358 specifically carves out Articles 20-21.

Article 15(3) allows the State to make special provisions for women and children.

Additionally, certain personal law matters related to adoption and guardianship are excluded from Article 15's purview.

Option B is covered by Article 15(4) for backward classes, Option C is not permitted, and Option D is covered by Article 16(3) regarding employment.

The 44th Amendment Act (1978) limited the duration of National Emergency. A proclamation of National Emergency can be revoked and re-declared, but theoretically, there is no absolute constitutional limit on total duration if it is continuously approved by Parliament.

Option A is correct per the 44th Amendment (written advice required).

Option B is correct per Article 352(4).

Option C is correct per Article 353.

Option D is the incorrect statement as there is no such three-period limit mentioned in the Constitution.

The 42nd Amendment (1976) made several significant changes including adding 'Secular' and 'Socialist' to the Preamble, expanded DPSP, and made other changes.

However, the anti-defection law was introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act (1985), not the 42nd Amendment.

The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 years through the 61st Amendment (1989).

Article 368 distinguishes between amendments.

Changes to the language provisions (Part XVII) and other non-fundamental aspects can be amended by Parliament with simple majority.

Federal structure, President's powers, and state representation require special majority and sometimes state ratification under Article 368.

While during National Emergency the President has significant powers, they are not unlimited and subject to judicial review.

The Supreme Court has held (in Kesavananda Bharati case and later judgments) that even emergency powers are subject to constitutional limitations and the basic structure cannot be destroyed.

The 97th Amendment (2011) inserted Article 19(1)(c) granting citizens the right to form and conduct cooperative societies.

This elevated the status of cooperative societies by making the right to form them a Fundamental Right.

Part IXB was added to provide for cooperative societies as constitutional bodies with representation provisions.

# Solution: The 42nd Amendment and Constitutional Changes

The 42nd Amendment, passed during the Emergency period, fundamentally restructured the Indian Constitution by expanding certain rights while simultaneously restricting others and making the amendment procedure more rigid.

Step 1: Understanding the 42nd Amendment (1976)

Passed during Indira Gandhi's Emergency (1975-1977), this amendment made sweeping changes to the Constitution's structure. It is often called the "Mini-Constitution" because it altered the basic framework of Indian democracy more extensively than any other amendment.

Step 2: Key Changes to Fundamental Rights and Amendment Procedure

The 42nd Amendment added new Directive Principles of State Policy (environmental protection, public property protection), restricted some Fundamental Rights, and crucially made amendments to Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles), and the amendment procedure itself much more difficult by requiring a supermajority rather than simple parliamentary majority. This effectively reduced judicial review and expanded executive power.

Final Answer: (B) 42nd Amendment (1976) — This amendment expanded the scope by adding new constitutional directives, simultaneously restricted certain freedoms, and fundamentally altered the amendment procedure to make constitutional changes more rigid and government-controlled.

Article 131 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between Union and states or between states.

Article 32 provides original jurisdiction for enforcing constitutional rights.

Article 138 extends original jurisdiction to matters of public importance involving interpretation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited and mainly covers federal disputes and constitutional matters, not general civil/criminal cases.

The President cannot directly dismiss the Prime Minister.

Article 75(5) provides that the PM holds office during the pleasure of the President, but this is a formal provision.

Practically, the PM must command confidence of Lok Sabha majority (Article 75).

If the PM loses this confidence, they resign or face a no-confidence motion.

The President cannot arbitrarily dismiss the PM—this is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy.

The President acts on advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74).

Article 368(3) requires that amendments affecting the division of powers between Union and states, and amendments altering the provisions regarding representation of states in Parliament, must be ratified by at least half of the state legislatures in addition to parliamentary approval.

This protects federalism.

For example, amendments to Article 1 (territory of India) and Articles 245-255 (distribution of legislative powers) require state ratification.

Article 72 grants the President power to pardon, reprieve, respite, and remit sentences in three categories: (1) offences against Union law, (2) sentences imposed by court-martial, and (3) sentences of death.

However, the President can only exercise this on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

The President cannot pardon offences against state laws or grant pardon in impeachment cases.

The power applies to cases where conviction is under Union law specifically.

Article 37 states that nothing in the DPSP shall be enforceable by any court, while Article 13 makes laws violating Fundamental Rights void.

However, the Supreme Court has evolved the doctrine of 'harmonious construction,' attempting to balance both.

In landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Court established that Fundamental Rights cannot be completely overridden, but DPSP can limit their scope.

Each case is examined individually for constitutional validity.

Article 72 grants the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions.

However, the article specifically provides that this power 'shall not extend to the punishment prescribed for an offense by the law of, or made by authority under, a law of, a State.' More importantly, Article 72(1)(c) states that the power shall not extend to cases where the punishment is by way of impeachment by Parliament.

The President exercises this power on the advice of the Cabinet/Prime Minister.

The 42nd Amendment (1976) significantly modified the Preamble, added Article 39A, and amended Article 368.

However, Article 21 was NOT directly modified by the 42nd Amendment.

The expansion of Article 21 to include right to life with dignity came through judicial interpretation, particularly in later judgments like Maneka Gandhi v.

Union of India (1978).