Answer: C

Explanation:

For election to the post of President, it is necessary for a person to fulfill the following qualifications:

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. He must have completed 35 years of age.

3. He is qualified to be elected as a member of the Lok Sabha.

4. He should not hold any office of profit in the Union Government or in any State Government or in any local authority or in any public authority. A sitting President or Vice-President, Governor of a State and a Union or State Minister are not considered to hold any office of profit. Thus he is a qualified candidate for the post of President.

Apart from this, for nomination for the Presidential election, the candidate should have at least 50 proposers and 50 seconders. Each candidate will deposit Rs. 15000 as security deposit in the Reserve Bank of India. This amount is forfeited if the candidate is unable to obtain 1/6th of the total votes polled. Before 1997, the number of proposers and approvers was ten each and the security amount was Rs. 2,500. It was extended in 1997 to discourage candidates who do not contest elections seriously. Hence option (c) is correct.

Answer: B

Explanation:

Initially, the Constitution used 'internal disturbance' as the third ground of national emergency, but this term was very vague and broad inference. Therefore, by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, the term internal disturbance was replaced by the term 'armed rebellion'. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

Therefore, it is no longer possible to declare an emergency on the grounds of internal disturbances, as was done by the Indira Gandhi led Congress government in 1975. But the President can proclaim national emergency only after receiving the written recommendation of the Cabinet. This means that emergency can be declared only with the consent of the Cabinet and not merely on the advice of the Prime Minister. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

In 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi advised the President to declare emergency without consulting the cabinet and after imposing the emergency, informed the cabinet about this proclamation.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 has introduced this protection to eliminate the possibility of the Prime Minister speaking and taking decisions alone in this context. The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 had kept the declaration of national emergency out of the scope of judicial review, but this provision was abolished by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Additionally, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court had said that the proclamation of national emergency can be challenged in the court on the ground that it is made entirely on the basis of external influence and unrelated facts or on the basis of lack of discretion or dogmatism. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

Answer: A

Explanation:

In the 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975, it has been provided that in the use of Article 356, the President will be satisfied and it cannot be challenged in any court. But by the 44th Constitutional Amendment of 1978, this provision was abolished that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond judicial review. Hence, statement 1 is correct and statement 2 is incorrect.

Answer: B

Explanation:

A bill passed by the Parliament becomes an act only when the President gives his assent to it. When such a Bill is presented for the President's assent, he has three options (under Article 111 of the Constitution): He can give his assent to the Bill; Or 2. Can reserve his assent to the bill; Or 3. He may return the Bill (if the Bill is not a Money Bill) for reconsideration of the Parliament.

However, if the Parliament again presents this bill to the President without any amendments or with amendments, then the President will have to give his assent. Thus, the President has veto power in respect of bills passed by the Parliament, 10 i.e. he can reserve the bill for his assent. There are two reasons for giving this power to the President - (a) to prevent Parliament from making hasty and not properly considered legislation, and; (b) To stop any unconstitutional legislation.

Hence, statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect.

Answer: B

Explanation:

According to Article 69 of the Indian Constitution, the Vice President is sworn in by the President. If the President is unable to administer the oath for some reason, he can entrust this task to some other person. Hence, statements 1 and 2 are correct.

The Vice President does not have the right to administer the oath himself. The task of administering the oath to the Vice President is not done by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Hence, statements 3 and 4 are incorrect.