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

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 10

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 ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\).