Consider the following statements : I. If any question arises as to whether a Member of the House of the People has become subject to disqualification under the 10th Schedule, the President's decision in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Union Ministers shall be final. II. There is no mention of the word 'political party' in the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

States that questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (for state legislatures) are decided by the Chairman/Speaker (not by the Governor).

A student could extend this pattern to ask whether, by analogy, parliamentary disqualifications are also allocated to a presiding officer (Speaker) rather than to the President.

Reiterates that the Chairperson/Speaker decides Tenth Schedule disqualification and that such decisions are subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan).

Combine this with knowledge that Lok Sabha has a Speaker to infer the institutional route for Tenth Schedule matters in Parliament versus presidential determination.

States the general constitutional rule that the President must exercise executive powers in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74(1)).

A student could use this general rule to test whether the President would independently adjudicate legislative membership questions or act only on ministerial advice.

Identifies narrowly defined situations in which the President may act in personal discretion (e.g., appointing PM when no clear majority), implying presidential discretionary power is limited.

A student might check whether determination of a member's disqualification fits any of those narrow discretionary categories or lies outside them (suggesting another forum decides).

This snippet points out a known omission: the Constitution does not use the word 'federation' even though it establishes a federal-like system, showing that some common political terms may be absent from the text.

A student could use this pattern (important political concepts sometimes omitted) to suspect and then directly search the constitutional text or Schedules for presence/absence of 'political party'.

States that 'every party in the country has to register with the Election Commission', indicating political parties are regulated by statute or administrative practice rather than necessarily by the Constitution itself.

A student could check whether registration/recognition rules are found in the Constitution or in election laws (e.g., Representation of the People Act) to infer where 'political party' terminology is more likely to appear.

Lists and classifications of 'national' and 'state' parties in a polity textbook show that 'political party' is a well-defined practical category in Indian governance, suggesting one should look at constitutional provisions that might deal with parties indirectly (e.g., electoral articles) even if the exact phrase is absent.

A student could examine constitutional articles on elections, membership of legislatures, and Schedules specifying states/territories to see if they use 'political party' or only refer to related concepts.

Mentions the number and contents of Articles and Schedules in the Constitution, which provides a practical checklist: if the term appears it must be somewhere among those Articles or Schedules.

A student could use this to limit a targeted search to the current 464 Articles and 12 Schedules (as of the cited date) to verify presence/absence of the phrase 'political party'.

Shows that the Constitution uses precise legal language (e.g., Article 136) and that courts interpret constitutional wording; absence of explicit mention in the Constitution would likely mean regulation of parties is left to law and judicial interpretation.

A student could infer that if 'political party' is not explicitly in constitutional text, litigation and statutes would be the places where courts and lawmakers have defined/treated parties; they can examine case law and statutes cited against the Constitution.