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: i. Situations of grave emergency require an actual threat to the security of the state.
ii. Emergency powers can be used to avert the threat posed by war, external aggression or internal disturbance.
iii. 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 tranquillity 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

Step 1: Understand the statutory provision.
Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 is a narrow carve-out: it empowers the government to exempt any factory from any provision of the Act only when a “public emergency” exists. The term public emergency is not left to common sense — it is precisely defined as a situation where: \[ \text{"the security of India or any part of the territory is threatened by war, external aggression or internal disturbance."} \] This wording sets:
- A threshold: grave emergency
- A type of harm: security threat
- A source: war, external aggression, or internal disturbance.
Step 2: How the Supreme Court approached it in \textbf{Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (GMS).}
The Court stressed that Section 5 is an exception to a beneficial social-welfare statute — it should be interpreted strictly, never expansively. From the judgment: - “Grave emergency” means more than inconvenience or economic hardship; it must be an actual, present danger to the security of the State. confirms (i).
- The only legitimate purpose of invoking Section 5 is to avert threats from the three scenarios named in the definition: war, external aggression, internal disturbance. confirms (ii).
- Any use of Section 5 for objectives beyond those — e.g., to boost production or bypass labour safeguards in ordinary times — is impermissible. confirms (iii).
Step 3: Logical consolidation.
All three statements directly restate the legal limits identified by the Supreme Court:
- Statement (i) — nature of emergency — Correct.
- Statement (ii) — permissible purposes — Correct.
- Statement (iii) — prohibition of other uses — Correct.
Step 4: Final conclusion.
Since all three are correct, the answer is: \[ \boxed{\text{D — All the above statements are correct}} \]

Answer 2

Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 lets the government exempt a factory from provisions of the Act during a public emergency, but this is a narrow safety valve in a law otherwise meant to protect workers, and the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat set out exactly how narrow that valve is.

1. Only i and iii are correct: This would mean the Court accepted that a grave emergency needs an actual threat to State security and that emergency powers cannot be used for any other purpose, but rejected the specific list of qualifying threats, war, external aggression, internal disturbance. That is not how the judgment reads; the Court defined the emergency by reference to exactly that list, so statement ii was not rejected.
2. Only ii is correct: This would mean only the list of qualifying threats was accepted while the Court rejected both the requirement of an actual security threat and the limit on using the power for other purposes. But the entire structure of the judgment rests on statement i, that emergency requires a genuine security threat, and statement iii, that the power cannot be stretched beyond that, so isolating only ii ignores the framework the Court built around it.
3. Only i and ii are correct: This drops statement iii, the limitation that emergency powers must not be used for any other purpose. The Court was emphatic on this exact point, since the case arose because the Gujarat Government tried to use Section 5 to extend factory working hours during the Covid-19 lockdown, a situation the Court found had nothing to do with a threat to the security of the State. Dropping iii leaves out the very holding that decided the case.
4. All the above statements are correct: The Court held that public emergency under Section 5 means a grave emergency threatening the security of India by war, external aggression or internal disturbance, matching i and ii, and that this power exists only for that narrow purpose and cannot be used to justify unrelated measures like extending working hours during a pandemic, matching iii. Each of the three statements reflects part of the actual holding, so all three stand together.

The judgment reads Section 5 strictly: an actual threat to the security of the State, limited to war, external aggression or internal disturbance, and never a general power to override labour protections for administrative convenience.

The correct answer is All the above statements are correct.

Answer 3

Step 1: Recall the post–44th Amendment text of Article 352.
The Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978 replaced “internal disturbance” with “armed rebellion”. Hence, after 1978, the three grounds are: war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. 
Step 2: Eliminate options using the current text.
(A) includes “internal disturbance” ⇒ incorrect post-44th.
(B) introduces “financial instability” (not a ground) ⇒ incorrect.
(C) exactly matches the amended Article 352 ⇒ correct.
(D) mixes “armed rebellion” with the obsolete “internal disturbance” ⇒ incorrect. 
Step 3: Conclude.
Therefore, \(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\) is the only option aligned with Article 352 as amended.

Answer 4

This question asks which set of grounds is provided under Article 352 of the Constitution as it stands today, after the changes made by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, for the President to proclaim an emergency.

1. By war or external aggression or internal disturbance: This was the original wording of Article 352 as it stood before 1978. The Forty-fourth Amendment specifically removed the phrase "internal disturbance" from the article because it was considered too vague and had been used to justify the 1975 Emergency. This option describes the pre-amendment position, not the law as it exists now, so it does not answer the question correctly.
2. By war or external aggression or financial instability: Financial instability is not, and has never been, a ground under Article 352. A threat to the financial stability or credit of India is dealt with separately under Article 360, which deals with Financial Emergency and involves a different set of consequences from a National Emergency. Mixing this ground into Article 352 is incorrect.
3. By war or external aggression or armed rebellion: This is the exact wording Article 352 carries today. The Forty-fourth Amendment substituted "armed rebellion" for "internal disturbance" so that a National Emergency could be declared only for a serious, violent challenge to the authority of the state, and not for ordinary civil unrest or political agitation. This matches the constitutional text precisely.
4. By war or armed rebellion or internal disturbance: This option tries to combine the post-1978 ground (armed rebellion) with the pre-1978 ground (internal disturbance) in the same clause, and it drops external aggression altogether. Article 352 has never read this way at any point in its history, so this is incorrect on two counts.

Reading the amended text of Article 352 against each option shows that only the third option, war, external aggression or armed rebellion, reflects the law as it stands since 1978.

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

Answer 5

Step 1: What changed in 1978?
The 44th Amendment added a safeguard: the President can issue a Proclamation of Emergency only on the basis of the written advice of the Cabinet (i.e., Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head, of Cabinet rank). The requirement is about who advises and that it be in writing. 
Step 2: Test each option.
(A) Only the Prime Minister ⇒ fails the Cabinet-in-writing requirement ⇒ wrong.
(B) Prior approval by both Houses is not a pre-condition to issuance (Parliamentary approval comes after issuance within the prescribed period) ⇒ wrong.
(C) Mirrors the Amendment’s safeguard — Cabinet decision & written communication to the President ⇒ correct.
(D) Approval by half the State Legislatures relates to constitutional amendments under Article 368, not emergency proclamations ⇒ wrong. Step 3: Conclusion.
The only option that reflects the 44th Amendment safeguard is \(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\).

Answer 6

This question is about the specific procedural safeguard that the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 built into Article 352, governing whose advice the President must act on before issuing a Proclamation of Emergency.

1. To be taken by the Prime Minister and conveyed to the President: Before 1978, in practice a Proclamation could go through on the advice of the Prime Minister alone, without the full Cabinet being consulted. The Forty-fourth Amendment was passed precisely to end this, by requiring the decision of the entire Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank, not the Prime Minister individually. This option describes the position the amendment was meant to correct, not the current safeguard.
2. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by both Houses of Parliament: Parliamentary approval is indeed required under Article 352, but it comes after the Proclamation has already been issued, within one month, not as a step that has to happen before the President can act. Treating parliamentary approval as a pre-condition to issuing the Proclamation confuses two separate stages of the process.
3. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing: This is exactly the safeguard the Forty-fourth Amendment inserted as Article 352(3). The President can act only on a written recommendation of the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank, headed by the Prime Minister. The requirement of writing was added specifically to remove any doubt about whether Cabinet approval was genuinely taken, and to create a clear record.
4. To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by at least half the State Legislatures: Approval by half the State Legislatures is a requirement that applies to certain constitutional amendments under Article 368, where the amendment touches federal features of the Constitution. It has no role in the emergency proclamation process under Article 352.

Matching each option against the actual text of Article 352(3) shows the requirement is Cabinet-level written advice, nothing more and nothing less.

So the correct answer is Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank, communicated to the President in writing.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding “internal disturbance.”
The Commission used “internal disturbance” in a broad, factual sense (short of external aggression), covering serious breakdowns of public order/peace and similar disorders that may require Union assistance under Article 355. 
Step 2: Option-wise analysis.
(A) Financial exigency is a separate constitutional concept (e.g., Article 360 — Financial Emergency) and not cited as an instance of “internal disturbance” in this context ⇒ incorrect.
(B) Breaches of public peace fall squarely within internal disturbance/public order problems ⇒ correct.
(C) Inefficient administration (mere maladministration) does not, by itself, equal internal disturbance ⇒ incorrect.
(D) Since (B) is correct, “None of the above” is incorrect. 
Step 3: Final selection.
Therefore, \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\) best matches the Sarkaria Commission’s illustrations.

Answer 8

Article 355 places a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. This question asks what the Sarkaria Commission identified as falling within "internal disturbance" for this purpose.

1. Situations of financial exigencies: A threat to the financial stability of India, or of any State, is dealt with under a separate provision, Article 360, which deals with Financial Emergency. The Sarkaria Commission did not treat financial difficulty by itself as a form of internal disturbance under Article 355, since the two provisions address different kinds of crisis.
2. Breaches of public peace: The Commission read "internal disturbance" in a broad, factual sense, covering situations where public order breaks down seriously enough that the State machinery alone cannot handle it and Union assistance becomes necessary. A breach of public peace, a serious disturbance to law and order, falls squarely within this understanding.
3. Inefficient administration: Poor or inefficient administration by a State government is a separate concern, one that may in extreme cases be relevant to whether governance is being carried on in accordance with the Constitution, but by itself it is not the kind of breakdown of public order that "internal disturbance" refers to. Mere inefficiency does not equal a security threat.
4. None of the above: Since breaches of public peace is correctly recognised by the Sarkaria Commission as within the meaning of internal disturbance, this option cannot be right.

Of the four options, only breaches of public peace matches the kind of situation the Sarkaria Commission had in mind when it explained the scope of internal disturbance under Article 355.

So the correct answer is breaches of public peace.

Answer 9

Step 1: Scope of “external aggression” in Article 355.
In Sarbananda Sonowal, the Court interpreted “external aggression” broadly to include non-military threats if they undermine the security and integrity of the nation — such as large-scale illegal immigration from another country. 
Step 2: Applying to options.
(A) Matches the judgment — illegal migrants from other countries can amount to external aggression ⇒ correct.
(B) Migration from within India is an internal movement of citizens and not “external aggression” ⇒ incorrect.
(C) Restricts “external aggression” only to war-like military acts — the judgment broadened beyond that ⇒ incorrect.
(D) Incorrect because (A) is correct. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
\(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\) reflects the Supreme Court’s expanded interpretation.

Answer 10

This question is about how the Supreme Court, in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, read the term "external aggression" in Article 355 in the specific context of illegal migration into Assam.

1. Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries: This is the actual holding in Sonowal. The Court took the view that "external aggression" need not mean an armed attack by a foreign state alone, it can also take the form of a large, unchecked influx of illegal migrants from another country, since this too threatens the demographic balance, security and integrity of the region. On this reasoning, the Union's Article 355 duty extends to protecting a State from this kind of influx.
2. Situations where there are large-scale cases of migration from other parts of India: Migration from one part of India to another is the movement of citizens within their own country, a right protected under Article 19(1)(e). Nothing in Sonowal treats internal migration as external aggression, since there is no foreign element to it at all.
3. Cases of external aggression which are similar to war: This reads external aggression narrowly, as limited to war-like military action. The significance of the Sonowal judgment is that it moved away from this narrow, purely military reading and extended the term to cover a non-military but still serious threat, illegal immigration.
4. None of the above: Since the first option correctly captures what the Court actually held, this option is incorrect.

The Sonowal judgment is specifically remembered for widening external aggression under Article 355 to include large-scale illegal migration from outside India, which is what the first option describes.

So the correct answer is large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries.

Answer 11

Step 1: Definition in Section 5.
A “public emergency” under Section 5 means a grave emergency threatening the security of India or part thereof, whether by war, external aggression or internal disturbance. The threat must be to security, not just economic well-being. 
Step 2: Court’s findings in GMS.
The Court held that economic slowdown — even if severe — does not meet the security threat standard in the definition. The pandemic did not amount to war, external aggression, or internal disturbance threatening security. Hence: (i) Incorrect — slowdown alone is not “public emergency”.
(ii) Incorrect — it was not similar to national emergency situations.
(iii) Incorrect — economic slowdown is not “internal disturbance” under Section 5.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since all three statements are incorrect, \(\boxed{\text{(D)}}\) is the correct choice.

Answer 12

This question is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, which examined whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdown amounted to a "public emergency" under the Explanation to Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, a status that would let the State exempt factories from the normal limits on working hours.

1. Only i and iii are correct: Statement i says the economic slowdown itself is a public emergency, and statement iii says the same slowdown is an internal disturbance threatening security. The Court held neither. It found that Section 5's Explanation defines public emergency as a grave emergency threatening the security of India, by war, external aggression or internal disturbance, a standard aimed at physical or security threats, not economic hardship however severe. This option is wrong on both counts it relies on.
2. Only ii and iii are correct: Statement ii equates the pandemic situation with a national emergency caused by war or external aggression, and statement iii again calls the slowdown an internal disturbance. The Court rejected both comparisons, holding that an economic slowdown, even a severe one caused by a pandemic, does not rise to the level of a security threat that Section 5 requires. This option fails on both statements too.
3. Only i and ii are correct: This combines the claim that the slowdown alone is a public emergency with the claim that it is comparable to a war-like national emergency. The Court's reasoning was built around denying exactly this, that a purely economic disruption cannot be treated the same as a threat to national security. Both parts of this option are incorrect.
4. None of the above statements are correct: Since statement i, statement ii and statement iii were each rejected by the Court, none of the three statements is correct, and this is the only option that reflects the actual outcome in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha.

The Supreme Court's finding was that economic hardship from the pandemic and lockdown, however real, does not meet the security-threat standard Section 5's Explanation demands, so all three statements fail.

So the correct answer is none of the above statements are correct.

Answer 13

Step 1: Distinguishing “law and order” from “public order.”
The Court held that “law and order” is a broader term, but “public order” focuses on the disturbance’s impact on the community. The nature of the act alone is insufficient; the effect on public tranquillity and the even tempo of life is crucial. 
Step 2: Applying to the given options.
(A) Correct — nature of act alone is not decisive; context matters.
(B) Correct — disturbance of public tranquillity is a key factor.
(C) Correct — whether the community’s normal life continues undisturbed is part of the test. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since all three are correct, \(\boxed{\text{(D)}}\) is the answer.

Answer 14

This question draws on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court explained how to tell whether a disturbance affects mere "law and order" or rises to the level of a "public order" problem.

1. Not by the nature of the act alone e.g., a case of stabbing of one person by another: The Court held that this question cannot be decided just by looking at the type of act committed. A single stabbing is a serious crime and a law and order problem, but it does not, by itself, disturb public order unless it has a wider effect on the community. So the nature of the act alone is not decisive, and this is a correct statement of the Court's reasoning.
2. The degree to which public tranquillity is disturbed: The Court's test looks at how far the act disturbs the current, ordinary tranquillity of the society or a part of it, rather than at the act in isolation. The greater the disturbance to public tranquillity, the more likely the situation is a public order problem rather than a mere law and order one. This is also a correct part of the Court's test.
3. Whether the even tempo of life of a community continues undisturbed or not: This is the well known formulation from Arun Ghosh, an act affects public order if it disturbs the even tempo of life of the community, and remains a law and order issue if the tempo of community life carries on largely unaffected. This too correctly captures the Court's reasoning.
4. All the above: Since each of the first three statements accurately reflects a distinct part of the same test the Supreme Court laid down across these cases, all three together describe how the Court determines whether a matter is one of law and order or public order.

Ram Manohar Lohia and Arun Ghosh, read together, establish that the nature of the act alone is not decisive, that the degree of disturbance to public tranquillity matters, and that the even tempo of community life is the ultimate touchstone, all three at once.

So the correct answer is all the above.

Answer 15

Step 1: Understanding the “public order” test.
The Court considers multiple factors: the nature of the act (how violent or disruptive), the degree of effect on the community, and relation to maintenance of law and order. 
Step 2: Option-wise analysis.
(i) Correct — violence level is relevant even before considering broader context.
(ii) Correct — assessing the degree/effect on community life is essential.
(iii) Correct — factors tied to law and order maintenance are part of the evaluation. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
All statements are valid tests, so \(\boxed{\text{(D)}}\) is correct.

Answer 16

This question asks which of the three statements correctly describe how the Supreme Court decides whether an act disturbs "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order". Statement i deals with the nature and violence of the act, statement ii deals with its effect on community life, and statement iii ties the test to the maintenance of law and order. Each option below claims a different combination of these three statements to be correct, so each option must be checked against what the Court has actually laid down.

1. Only i and iii are correct: This option leaves out statement ii, the community-effect limb of the test. Since the Court's public order test rests heavily on how an act touches the even tempo of community life, dropping statement ii makes this option incomplete. Not the full picture.
2. Only ii is correct: This option keeps only the community-effect limb and drops both i and iii. While ii is certainly part of the test, the nature of the act and its connection to law and order maintenance are also factors the Court weighs, so restricting the test to ii alone understates it.
3. Only i and ii are correct: This combination captures the nature of the act and its community effect but leaves out iii, the law and order maintenance angle. Since the public order and law and order distinction is itself framed around maintenance of order, omitting iii is incomplete.
4. All the above statements are correct: This option keeps all three limbs together, the character and violence of the act, the degree and effect it has on community life, and its link to the maintenance of law and order. Read together, these three factors form the complete test the Court applies when classifying a disturbance as one of public order rather than ordinary law and order.

Since the public order test is not a single-factor test but a composite one, all three statements need to be read together rather than picking one or two in isolation.

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

Answer 17

Step 1: Court’s ruling in GMS.
The Court found that Section 5’s emergency exemption could not be invoked without meeting the “public emergency” threshold. The CoVID-19 economic slowdown was insufficient to trigger such emergency powers. 
Step 2: Applying to statements.
(i) Incorrect — the pandemic was not considered a “grave emergency” under Section 5.
(ii) Correct — issuing the exemption without satisfying statutory conditions violated the rule of law.
(iii) Correct — denying overtime pay for extended hours breached the principle of just and humane working conditions under labour laws and constitutional directives.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Only (ii) and (iii) are correct ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\).

Answer 18

This question is about the Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha case, where the Supreme Court examined a state government notification that used the emergency exemption under the Factories Act, 1948 to extend daily working hours to twelve hours without paying overtime, during the CoVID-19 lockdown period. The three statements test whether the pandemic justified this move, and if not, what legal principles the exemption violated. Each option combines these statements differently, so each needs separate scrutiny.

1. Only i and iii are correct: This option treats the pandemic as a valid ground for the exemption (statement i) while also flagging the humane-conditions violation (iii). But the Court held that the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic did not meet the high threshold of a "public emergency" needed to trigger the exemption, so treating i as correct is wrong. This combination fails.
2. Only ii is correct: This isolates the rule of law violation and ignores the humane working conditions point entirely. Since the Court's reasoning rested on both grounds together, taking only ii understates the judgment.
3. Only ii and iii are correct: This combination says the pandemic did not justify the exemption (excluding i) while affirming that the notification broke the rule of law and denied workers just and humane conditions of work. This matches the Court's actual reasoning: the exemption was issued without satisfying the statutory "public emergency" condition, which is itself a rule of law violation, and forcing twelve-hour days at ordinary wages without overtime denied workers humane working conditions.
4. All the above statements are correct: This wrongly includes statement i, treating the pandemic-driven slowdown as sufficient grounds for invoking the emergency exemption, which the Court expressly rejected.

The Court's actual finding was that the pandemic-related economic slowdown fell short of the statutory threshold for a public emergency, and that extending hours without overtime pay violated both the rule of law and the constitutional promise of humane conditions of work.

So the correct answer is Only ii and iii are correct.

Answer 19

Step 1: Purpose of double wage rate for overtime.
The overtime provision is both a compensatory and a protective measure. It recognises that extended work hours impose additional strain, which requires fair monetary compensation (i). 
Step 2: Health and stamina aspect.
Continuous long hours can degrade workers’ health; the provision helps them maintain proper health and stamina by discouraging excessive overtime unless fairly rewarded (ii). 
Step 3: Anti-exploitation safeguard.
By mandating double wages, the law deters employers from overusing labour purely for cost-saving purposes, thus protecting workers from exploitation (iii). 
Step 4: Conclusion.
All three rationales are correct ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\).

Answer 20

This question asks why the Factories Act, 1948 fixes overtime wages at double the normal rate instead of leaving it at the ordinary rate or some smaller premium. The three statements offer three different justifications, compensating extra strain, preserving health and stamina, and preventing exploitation, and the options ask which of these are actually behind the rule.

1. i, ii, and iii are correct: This option keeps all three justifications together. Working beyond the fixed daily or weekly limit puts extra physical and mental strain on a worker, so a higher rate compensates for that strain. It also discourages employers from routinely running workers past healthy limits, which helps workers keep up proper health and stamina. And by making overtime costly, it stops employers from treating overtime as a cheap substitute for hiring enough staff, which protects workers from being overworked and underpaid.
2. Only i and iii are correct: This drops the health and stamina justification, but the whole reason overtime is capped and made expensive is tied to preventing the kind of continuous overwork that damages a worker's health, so leaving out ii understates the rule's purpose.
3. Only ii is correct: This keeps only the health justification and drops both compensation for strain and protection from exploitation, even though the double-wage rule plainly does both of those things as well.
4. Only ii and iii are correct: This drops the compensation-for-strain justification, but paying double wages is, at its core, exactly that, extra pay for extra physical and mental exertion, so removing i leaves the reasoning incomplete.

All three justifications work together: double wages compensate the worker for added strain, discourage overwork that would harm health and stamina, and guard against employers using overtime to exploit labour cheaply.

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