With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

States Article 329 bars courts' jurisdiction over 'decision of such disputes' relating to election of members and says election questions can be agitated only by an election petition.

A student could check the exact scope of Article 329 and whether 'decisions of the Election Commission' are covered by 'such disputes' or limited to election petitions concerning returned candidates.

Explains a similar bar for State Election Commissions: courts cannot examine validity of certain laws and municipal elections can be challenged only by prescribed election petitions.

Compare the wording and scope of Article 243K/243ZA (state-level) with Article 324/329 to see if the immunity pattern at state/local level parallels the national EC.

Defines Article 324's grant of 'superintendence, direction and control' to the Election Commission, highlighting its decisive role in election matters.

Use this to ask whether constitutional vesting of powers in the EC implies exclusivity from judicial review, and then inspect constitutional text/cases limiting or clarifying that exclusivity.

Records that rules for distribution of work in an Act concerning Election Commissioners were challenged in the Supreme Court and the Court issued directions and settled the matter.

A student could use this example to investigate precedents where courts have entertained challenges touching the Election Commission, to see limits of alleged immunity.

States the Supreme Court and High Courts have power of judicial review to declare executive actions unconstitutional.

Combine this general judicial-review principle with Article 329/324 texts to test whether the courts' power is expressly excluded for EC actions or only limited in specific contexts.

Says Article 360 empowers the President to proclaim a Financial Emergency when 'she is satisfied' that financial stability is threatened and notes historical amendments affecting the finality of the President's satisfaction.

A student could combine this wording ('satisfied') with knowledge of Article 74 (ministerial advice) to ask whether 'satisfaction' is a purely presidential subjective power or normally exercised on ministerial advice.

States plainly that 'The President can proclaim financial emergency if he/she is satisfied...' and lists powers the President may issue during such emergency.

Use this explicit statutory phrasing together with the constitutional convention that the President acts on Council of Ministers' aid and advice to probe if proclamation is an executive-matter requiring ministerial concurrence.

Discusses limits/exceptions to the rule that the President must act on ministerial advice (e.g., brief period when choosing a new PM may permit acting without advice).

A student can extend this pattern to ask whether any such exception exists for Article 360—i.e., is proclamation of financial emergency a situation where President may act independently under constitutional practice?

Notes a specific historic exception (J&K) where certain emergencies could not be declared without the State's concurrence, showing that the constitution contemplates special procedural rules for emergencies.

A student could infer that procedural/consensual requirements for emergency declarations can vary and thus investigate whether Article 360 imposes required concurrence/advice in the normal Union context.

Describes some consequences/powers during a financial emergency (e.g., Centre can direct states to reserve money bills for the President's consideration), indicating centralised control during financial emergency.

Combine this centralising pattern with the principle of ministerial responsibility to examine whether such far-reaching measures would plausibly require prior ministerial (Union Council) advice before the President proclaims the emergency.