Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026 | QB Set 4

As evident from the word “emergency”, it refers to the unexpected turn of events that causes the public authorities to take instant actions within their boundary. Human civil rights, except Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, are removed from the state or Nation during an emergency. Most of the emergencies are brought about by breaking down administrative machinery. Emergency in the Indian Constitution can be differentiated as National Emergencies, State Emergencies, and Financial Emergencies. Part XVIII of the Constitution contains the emergency provisions in India.

Article 352 demarcates the National Emergency: According to Article 352, the President may declare an emergency when the region is under a state of attack, external intrusion, or armed rebellion (the term internal disturbance was changed to armed rebellion by the 44th amendment in 1978). Though such a declaration could only be made in the presence of the legislative house and further supported by each chamber, the emergency was withdrawn after a month of announcement. The emergency can be imposed on the entire country or any part of the country.

The first emergency in the Nation was declared during the war with China, which lasted between 1962 and 1968. After that, the most contentious emergency was declared due to internal conflict by Smt. Indira Gandhi. State Emergency has been included in Article 356: Article 356 marks out that the President can declare a state emergency on receipt of briefs by the Governor of a particular state or by the President’s observation on degrading mechanisms of the state. Thirty-five instances of President’s rule have been recorded under the rule of Smt. Indira Gandhi.

Financial Emergency is provided in Article 360: The President can declare financial emergencies if convincing evidence of an unstable economy and credibility is encountered. Executive and legislative factors play a central role in declaring a financial emergency. Financial emergency has never been declared in India.

1. A country B declared war with a country T. T being a hub for medical education, many students who were I nationals were there. After the declaration of war on T by B, I somehow managed to bring back its nationals from T. After the same, I felt a threat of being invaded by B as relations between I and B have never been good. Therefore, the president of I declared an emergency with respect to the same. Was the president justified in doing so?

(a) The president was definitely justified in taking this action as the situation has chances for a war.

(b) The president is definitely justified in doing so as it is clearly mentioned that the relations between the two countries were not good and hence, I by declaring emergency, took a step towards national security.

(c) The president is not justified in doing so as there was no declaration of war or huge chances of external intrusion by B on I.

(d) The president is not justified as he cannot issue emergency whenever he wants to as he has to consider the commoners problems as well.

2. A and B are two countries that are at conflict over their respective geographical boundaries. The contested land boundary in A was in X state, in the north western part. Whereas in B, it was located in the southwestern part of State Z. Out of aggression towards the nation A, the soldiers of B decided to breach the disputed boundary in order to obtain further ownership of the disputed land and to expand their army camps. This resulted in a disagreement between the soldiers of both countries, which resulted in an armed war between the countries soldiers in the disputed area. Seeing this, Country A’s president issued an emergency declaration throughout the country. Was he justified in his actions?

(a) Yes, as it can clearly lead to war between the two countries because of which the entire country is under threat.

(b) No, as declaring emergency over the whole country is not justified as this took part only in one part of the country.

(c) No, as there was no threat or war declared by the country A to B.

(d) Yes, as this amounted to national threat and hence, declaring a national emergency was justified.

3. The constitution of India authorises the president to “suspend the right to move to any court to enforce fundamental rights during a national emergency as the fundamental rights automatically gets suspended while emergency is declared”. Same was done when the president of India declared a national emergency in the country. X at the same time moved to the court as he was deprived of his rights under Article 14 of the constitution and went to seek remedy on the same on an urgent basis. The Court at the same time held the matter to be sensitive in nature and passed a judgement restoring his fundamental rights. After the emergency was over, Y challenged the courts judgment saying that it is not justified on the part of the court to pass such a judgment during emergency and hence, this stands null and void. Decide on the same.

(a) The court’s judgment cannot be held null and void as it adjudged the matter looking at its sensitivity which can be an exception in the instant matter.

(b) Y is justified in challenging the courts judgment as the law does not permit the courts or any person to do so in emergency.

(c) Y is not justified in challenging the same as even in emergency, certain fundamental rights can be adjudged upon.

(d) The court’s judgment can be held null and void citing that the courts don’t have power to do so.

4. “ETC”, a very renowned NGO was protesting against the Government of India since weeks because of the newly policy which ETC contended was against the rights of Transgenders. The protest which started in January 2023, was becoming massive with each passing day. Slowly it was expanding in the whole country as the followers of “ETC” were countrywide. The protests slowly devolved into violence and huge losses were caused with respect to the governmental property and many people died during the same. The Prime Minister advised the President of India to issue an emergency in the country to stop all of this. On the Prime Minister’s advice, the President issued an emergency nationwide on the ground of internal disturbance. Was he justified in doing so?

(a) Yes, as this clearly indicates that there was an internal disturbance in the country because of which emergency was declared. Hence, the President is justified in his actions.

(b) No, as emergency cannot be declared in case of internal disturbance but, in armed rebellion.

(c) The president is justified in his actions as there was a threat to national security.

(d) Emergency in this case cannot be declared as there was no war or declaration of war in this instance.

5. Consider the following scenarios and determine which one is true with respect to the passage.

(a) Indian armed forces, being disappointed with the governmental Armed Forces policies, organise a nation-wide

protest which turns violent. Government declares emergency.

(b) All the RBI online portals get hacked by a foreign account which leads the country to declare digital emergency.

(c) China says that whenever India tries to get possession over the disputed border between the two countries without China’s knowledge, China will declare war. Indian government declares emergency.

(d) Pakistan declares emergency as India declares war against it but, India steps back later on and even after that the emergency in Pakistan is continued.

Answers:

1. c
2. b
3. b
4. b
5. a