UPSC Prelims 2017 · Question 46 of 99
UPSC Prelims 2017 question on Presidents Rule Consequences
Which of the following are not necessarily the consequences of the proclamation of the President’s Rule in a State?
1. Dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly
2. Removal of the Council of Ministers in the State
3. Dissolution of the local bodies
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Show answer
Answer: B. 1 and 3 only
Verdict
The answer is 1 and 3 only. Dissolution of the Assembly and dissolution of local bodies are not necessary consequences of President's Rule, whereas removal of the Council of Ministers is.
Analysis
Statement 2 describes a necessary consequence, so it is excluded from the answer: when President's Rule is proclaimed the President dismisses the State Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, and the Governor carries on the administration on the President's behalf. Statement 1 is a correct answer choice because the President may either suspend or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly, so dissolution is optional rather than automatic. Statement 3 is also a correct answer choice, since panchayats and municipalities are constitutionally protected local bodies untouched by Article 356.
Source
M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, chapter on emergency provisions.
How to crack it
Read the stem twice, because it asks which consequences are not necessary, and negation questions are lost on misreading far more often than on knowledge. Then apply the constitutional logic: Article 356 suspends the State executive and legislature, but Part IX and Part IXA give local bodies their own constitutional footing, so they survive. Distinguishing must happen from may happen is the whole test here.