send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In the context of events unfolding in the Arunachal case, consider the following statements:
Assertion (A): A State Governor’s recommendations and their relevance to the imposition of President’s rule cannot be scrutinised by a court of law
Reason (R): Article 361 of the Constitution gives the Governors protection from legal action for acts done in performance of their powers and duties
Select the correct answer:
A and R both are true, and R is the correct explanation for A
A and R both are true, and R is the NOT the correct explanation for A
A is incorrect, R is correct
A and R both are incorrect
statement A is incorrect because A State Governor’s recommendations and their relevance to the imposition of President’s rule can be scrutinised by a court of law as in the recent case of Arunaxhal Pradesh.
By: Abhipedia ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses