Judicial Review of Emergency Powers

Statement 2 is correct. As delineated in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment, which adopted the Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommendations, a hung assembly is a proper ground for Article 356. Statement 1 is incorrect because the court explicitly barred 'maladministration' as a valid trigger. Statement 3 is incorrect as disregarding constitutional Central directives remains a valid ground for dismissal.

A is true, as wilful disobedience of the Constitution is a valid ground under Article 356. R is false. Pursuant to the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court explicitly distinguished 'maladministration' from constitutional failure, classifying the former as an improper ground for central intervention.

Option 2 is correct. Under the framework established by the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment, a hung assembly is a recognized and proper ground for invoking Article 356. Option 1 is incorrect because maladministration is explicitly categorized as an improper ground. Options 3 and 4 invent constitutional mechanisms outside the provided legal facts.

Two statements are correct (the first and third). As per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bommai case (1994), a hung assembly and the disregarding of Central constitutional directives are valid triggers. The second statement is the distractor; maladministration is an improper ground for President's rule.