Question

Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 provides for the power of exemption from certain provisions of the Act due to the occurrence of a public emergency. In GMS, the Supreme Court held that:

1. Situations of grave emergency require an actual threat to the security of the state.
2. Emergency powers can be used to avert the threat posed by war, external aggression or internal disturbance.
3. Emergency powers must not be used for any other purpose.

• A. Only i and iii are correct
• B. Only ii is correct
• C. Only i and ii are correct
• D. All the above statements are correct
• A. By war or external aggression or internal disturbance
• B. By war or external aggression or financial instability
• C. By war or external aggression or armed rebellion
• D. By war or armed rebellion or internal disturbance
• A. To be taken by the Prime Minister and conveyed to the President
• B. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by both Houses of Parliament
• C. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing
• D. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by at least half the State Legislatures
• A. Situations of financial exigencies
• B. Breaches of public peace
• C. Inefficient administration
• D. None of the above
• A. Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries
• B. Situations where there are large-scale cases of migration from other parts of India
• C. Cases of external aggression which are similar to ‘war’
• D. None of the above
• A. Only i and iii are correct
• B. Only ii and iii are correct
• C. Only i and ii are correct
• D. None of the above statements are correct
• A. Not by the nature of the act alone e.g., a case of stabbing of one person by another
• B. The degree to which public tranquility is disturbed
• C. Whether the even tempo of life of a community continues undisturbed or not
• D. All the above
• A. Only i and iii are correct
• B. Only ii is correct
• C. Only i and ii are correct
• D. All the above statements are correct
• A. Only i and iii are correct
• B. Only ii is correct
• C. Only ii and iii are correct
• D. All the above statements are correct
• A. i, ii, and iii are correct
• B. Only i and iii are correct
• C. Only ii is correct
• D. Only ii and iii are correct

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D): All the above statements are correct.

Answer 2

The question tests the requirements the Supreme Court laid down in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat for invoking the emergency exemption power under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948. Let's check each statement against what the Court actually said in that judgment.

1. Statement (i), grave emergency needs an actual threat to state security: The Court read "public emergency" through the explanation to Section 5, which defines it as a grave emergency whereby the security of India is threatened. An actual threat to security is required, not just any economic hardship, so this statement is correct.
2. Statement (ii), emergency powers can be used against war, external aggression, or internal disturbance: This restates the three triggers named in the explanation to Section 5 word for word, so it is also correct.
3. Statement (iii), emergency powers must not be used for any other purpose: The Court treated the power as a narrow, exceptional one, limited strictly to the situations named in the explanation, and held it could not be stretched to justify economic relief for industry during a general slowdown. This is exactly why Gujarat's notification exempting factories from working-hour limits was struck down, so this statement is correct too.

Since the Court affirmed all three propositions while examining Gujarat's notification, the option covering all of them is the one that matches the ruling in full.

So, the correct answer is All the above statements are correct.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C): By war or external aggression or armed rebellion.

Answer 4

The question asks for the exact constitutional trigger for a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 as it stands today. Since the wording changed with the 44th Amendment, check each option against the current text.

1. By war or external aggression or internal disturbance: This was the original 1950 wording of Article 352. It was replaced because "internal disturbance" was seen as too vague and open to misuse, most notably during the 1975 Emergency. It is not the current text.
2. By war or external aggression or financial instability: Financial instability is the trigger for a Proclamation under Article 360, a Financial Emergency, which is a separate provision with its own procedure. It has never been a ground for Article 352.
3. By war or external aggression or armed rebellion: The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 replaced "internal disturbance" with "armed rebellion" in Article 352(1), tightening the threshold so ordinary law and order problems could no longer justify a national emergency. This matches the provision as it stands.
4. By war or armed rebellion or internal disturbance: This mixes the pre-1978 and post-1978 wording together. "Internal disturbance" was removed, not retained alongside "armed rebellion".

Only the third option reproduces the actual, current text of Article 352(1) after the 44th Amendment.

So, the correct answer is By war or external aggression or armed rebellion.

Answer 5

The correct option is (C): To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing.

Answer 6

This question is about the procedural safeguard the 44th Amendment added to Article 352(3), which governs how the decision to issue a Proclamation of Emergency is taken before it reaches the President. Check each option against that safeguard.

1. To be taken by the Prime Minister and conveyed to the President: Before the 44th Amendment, an emergency could effectively go through on the advice of the Prime Minister alone, which is exactly what the amendment was designed to stop. A decision by the Prime Minister alone is no longer sufficient.
2. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by both Houses of Parliament: Parliamentary approval is indeed required, but only after the Proclamation is issued, within one month under Article 352(4), not as a precondition for the President to issue it in the first place. This option wrongly places parliamentary approval before issuance.
3. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing: Article 352(3), inserted by the 44th Amendment, provides that the President shall not issue a Proclamation unless the decision of the Union Cabinet has been communicated to him in writing. This matches the provision precisely.
4. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by at least half the State Legislatures: There is no requirement anywhere in Article 352 for State Legislatures to approve a national emergency; that kind of requirement exists for some constitutional amendments under Article 368, not for Article 352.

Only the third option reflects the written-communication safeguard actually inserted by the 44th Amendment.

So, the correct answer is To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing.

Answer 7

The correct option is (D): None of the above.

Answer 8

Article 355 requires the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance, and the Supreme Court has looked to the Sarkaria Commission's report to understand what situations that phrase actually covers. Check each listed situation against what the Commission said.

1. Situations of financial exigencies: A threat to the financial stability of India is dealt with separately, under Article 360, which creates its own distinct ground and procedure for a Financial Emergency. The Sarkaria Commission did not treat financial exigencies as a form of internal disturbance under Article 355.
2. Breaches of public peace: Ordinary breaches of public peace, such as local law and order incidents, are a state subject and are handled by the state's own police machinery. The Commission's illustrations of internal disturbance were pitched at a much higher level, such as large-scale disorder aimed at subverting or destabilising a state government, not routine breaches of peace.
3. Inefficient administration: The Commission was in fact concerned about this ground being misused to justify central intervention, and it cautioned against treating maladministration or inefficient governance by a state as a valid trigger. Poor administration, on its own, was not accepted as internal disturbance.
4. None of the above: Since financial exigencies fall under a separate emergency provision, ordinary breaches of public peace do not rise to the scale the Commission described, and inefficient administration was expressly cautioned against as a ground, none of the three situations listed qualifies as internal disturbance under Article 355 in the way the question frames them.

Each of the first three options describes something the Sarkaria Commission either placed under a different provision or expressly rejected as a ground.

So, the correct answer is None of the above.

Answer 9

The correct option is (A): Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries.

Answer 10

This question asks what the Supreme Court actually held in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India about the scope of the Union's duty under Article 355. Check each option against that judgment.

1. Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries: In this case, the Court examined a law that applied only to Assam and made it harder to identify and deport illegal migrants from Bangladesh compared to the law used in the rest of India. The Court held that large-scale illegal migration into Assam amounted to external aggression and internal disturbance within the meaning of Article 355, obliging the Union to protect the state, and struck the special law down as unconstitutional for that reason.
2. Situations where there are large-scale cases of migration from other parts of India: The case was specifically about migration across an international border, from a foreign country into India, not internal migration between Indian states, which raises no comparable Article 355 concern.
3. Cases of external aggression which are similar to war: The Court did not require the aggression to resemble a war in scale or method; it treated large-scale illegal migration itself, a demographic and economic influx, as a form of external aggression, without anything like a military conflict.
4. None of the above: Since the Court did in fact extend Article 355 to illegal migration from a foreign country, this option is incorrect.

The judgment is specifically about migration across India's international border, not internal migration or a war-like external threat.

So, the correct answer is Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries.

Answer 11

The correct option is (D): None of the above statements are correct.

Answer 12

This question checks whether the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha accepted any of these three characterisations of the COVID-19 lockdown as a public emergency under Section 5 of the Factories Act. Go through each statement.

1. Statement (i), economic slowdown constitutes a public emergency: The Court held the opposite. It found that an economic slowdown, however severe, is not the kind of grave threat to the security of India that the explanation to Section 5 requires. A downturn in industrial activity does not by itself threaten the security of the state.
2. Statement (ii), the situation was similar to a national emergency from external aggression or war: The Court rejected this comparison too. It treated the hardship caused by the lockdown as economic and administrative in nature, not comparable to the kind of existential threat that war or external aggression poses to the nation.
3. Statement (iii), economic slowdown qualifies as internal disturbance: The Court rejected this as well, holding that internal disturbance in the explanation to Section 5 means something that threatens the security of the state itself, not general economic hardship across industries. On this basis it struck down Gujarat's notification exempting factories from working-hour protections.

Since the Court rejected all three characterisations and held that the pandemic-driven slowdown did not amount to a public emergency under Section 5, none of the given statements reflects what the Court actually decided.

So, the correct answer is None of the above statements are correct.

Answer 13

The correct option is (B): All the above.

Answer 14

This question is about the test the Supreme Court laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal to tell a mere law and order problem apart from a breach of public order. The Court explained this using three concentric circles: security of the state is the smallest and most serious circle, public order is the middle circle, and law and order is the largest and widest circle. Let us check each statement against that test.

1. Not by the nature of the act alone e.g., a case of stabbing of one person by another: This is correct. The Court gave the exact example of a stabbing to show that the same physical act can be a law and order problem in one setting and a public order problem in another. A private stabbing arising out of a personal quarrel usually stays within law and order, but a stabbing that sets off communal tension and disturbs the wider community becomes a public order problem. So the label cannot be fixed just by looking at what the act was.
2. The degree to which public tranquility is disturbed: This is correct. The Court held that the real difference between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act on society. An act that only affects specific individuals stays at the law and order level, while an act whose impact spreads out and shakes the tranquility of the community as a whole moves into the public order category.
3. Whether the even tempo of life of a community continues undisturbed or not: This is correct and is the actual phrase used in Arun Ghosh. If the normal, day-to-day life of the community carries on without interruption despite the act, it is a law and order problem. If the ordinary current of community life is upset, it becomes a public order problem.
4. All the above: Since each of the first three statements independently reflects a principle the Supreme Court actually laid down in these two judgments, none of them can be excluded, which makes this the accurate summary.

All three descriptions, the rejection of a nature-of-act-alone test, the degree of disturbance to public tranquility, and the even-tempo-of-community-life test, are different facets of the same rule the Court built up across these cases, so no single statement alone captures the full test.

Therefore, the correct answer is All the above.

Answer 15

The correct option is (B): Only ii is correct.

Answer 16

This question restates the same Ram Manohar Lohia / Arun Ghosh test but asks which of three roman-numeral statements is correct. Two of the three statements deliberately misstate the test, so each needs to be checked carefully against what the Supreme Court actually said.

1. By looking at the nature of the act, how violent it is irrespective of its context: This is incorrect. The Court expressly rejected judging an act by its nature or violence alone, without regard to context, precisely because the same act can fall into different categories depending on the surrounding circumstances, such as a stabbing during a personal quarrel versus one that triggers communal unrest.
2. The degree and effect any action has on the life of the community: This is correct. This is the actual test the Court applied, whether the extent and effect of the act reaches and disturbs the life of the community as a whole, rather than remaining confined to individuals.
3. By consideration of factors related to the maintenance of law and order: This is incorrect. This statement describes the test for the separate, wider category of law and order, not the narrower category of public order that the question is about. Mixing up the two categories is the error here.

Only the second statement correctly reflects the public order test; the first ignores context and the third confuses public order with the broader law and order category.

Therefore, the correct answer is Only ii is correct.

Answer 17

The correct option is (C): Only ii and iii are correct.

Answer 18

This question is about the challenge to a state government notification during the Covid-19 pandemic that extended factory working hours to 12 hours a day at the usual wage rate, without paying double wages for overtime as the Factories Act, 1948 requires. The Supreme Court examined whether the government's emergency exemption power could be used this way.

1. Justified in view of the grave emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic: This is incorrect. The Court held that the pandemic, though a genuine public health emergency, did not by itself justify suspending statutory wage protections for workers across the board. The exemption power under the Factories Act is meant for genuine, temporary operational difficulties, not as a blanket tool to cut labour costs during a crisis.
2. Violative of the rule of law: This is correct. The Court found that invoking the exemption power in this sweeping, blanket manner, covering all factories without individual justification, went beyond what the statute permitted and therefore violated the rule of law, since executive action must stay within the four corners of the law that authorises it.
3. Violative of just and humane conditions of work: This is correct. Extending working hours to 12 hours a day without overtime pay directly undermines the constitutional guarantee of just and humane conditions of work, a value the Court linked to the right to life and dignity under Article 21, and to Article 23's protection against forced labour when wages are not commensurate with the work done.

The pandemic could not justify overriding the statute, but the actual overreach of power and the unfair working conditions it created were both found to be real violations.

Therefore, the correct answer is Only ii and iii are correct.

Answer 19

The correct option is (A): i, ii, and iii are correct.

Answer 20

This question asks why the Factories Act, 1948 mandates double the ordinary wage rate for overtime work. The rationale behind this rule has both a compensatory and a protective purpose, so each of the three listed reasons needs to be checked against that purpose.

1. Compensating the worker for the extra strain on their health in doing overtime work: This is correct. Working beyond normal hours places additional physical and mental strain on a worker, and paying a higher rate recognises and compensates for that extra burden on the body.
2. Enabling the worker to maintain proper standard of health and stamina: This is correct. The higher rate is also meant to give the worker the means to recover from the additional exertion, whether through rest, nutrition, or medical care, so that their overall health and stamina are not worn down by extended working hours over time.
3. Protecting the worker against exploitation: This is correct. If overtime paid the same as regular hours, employers would have every incentive to routinely extend the working day instead of hiring more workers, effectively squeezing more labour out of the same person for the same money. The double rate makes this economically unattractive and discourages the practice, protecting workers from being overworked.

Each of these three reasons captures a genuine part of why the law fixes overtime pay at double the normal rate, compensation for strain, protection of long-term health, and a deterrent against exploitation.

Therefore, the correct answer is i, ii, and iii are correct.