Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

  1. Both II and III 
  2. Only II
  3. Only III
  4. Both I and II 
4 views

1 Answers

Option 3 : Only III

  • Article 352 is related to proclamation of emergency in case of internal disturbances and it cannot be extended to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. 
  • Article 356 deals with the rule of the Governor in the state in case of failure of the state machinery and it can be implemented in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. 
  • Article 365 is not enforceable in Jammu and Kashmir since the Union Government has no power to suspend the Constitution of the state in case of failure to comply with the directions given by the Union under this article. 
4 views

Related Questions

The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong' arguments and which is/are ‘weak' arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement:  The central government has told the Supreme Court that anti-adultery laws were required to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage and the institution of family', and any attempt to do away with these laws would hurt ‘Indian ethos'. The government was responding to a court notice on a public interest litigation which wanted the law struck down as it was not gender neutral and the provisions were tilted against men. Which among the following arguments support the above statement regarding the ‘revision of such laws' in the best possible manner Arguments: I. It seemed to suggest that women were chattel owned by men and could be guided and misguided. II. This would erode the sanctity of marriage as an institution and the societal fabric. The issue of making the provision gender neutral was already pending before the government. III. Any step towards decriminalising the offence in the interim would be detrimental to Indian ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and sanctity of marriage.?
1 Answers 4 Views
Two statements are followed by three Conclusions I, II and III. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You are to decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn from the given statements and indicate your answer accordingly. Statements: I. Fraud-hit Punjab National (PNB) today said it has no plans to close operations at its Brady House branch, the fountainhead of the Rs. 14,000 crore Nirav Modi scam. II. Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi, in connivance with certain bank officials, allegedly cheated PNB of about Rs. 14,000 crore through issuance of fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs).  Conclusions: I. PNB's Brady House branch in Mumbai had fraudulently issued LoUs for the group of companies belonging to Nirav Modi since March 2011. PNB has no plans to close operations in the Brady House branch in Mumbai. II. Reallocation of some of the accounts is part of the regular restructuring process at PNB to strengthen internal systems and processes and centralize certain critical functions  III. With regards to provision made for the loss incurred on account of the Nirav Modi fraud, the bank provided Rs. 7,178 crore, 50 per cent of the total amount of Rs. 14,356 crore, in the fourth quarter of 2017-18. The remaining amount will be covered in the three quarters of the current fiscal year.?
1 Answers 5 Views