Consider the following statements about Lokpal : I. The power of Lokpal applies to public servants of India, but not to the Indian public servants posted outside India. II. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a Member of the Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, and only the Chief Justice of India, whether incumbent or retired, has to be its Chairperson. III. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a person of less than forty-five years of age on the date of assuming office as the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be. IV. Lokpal cannot inquire into the allegations of corruption against a sitting Prime Minister of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

States the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 mandates establishment of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for states, indicating the Act contains institutional and jurisdictional rules.

A student could use this to justify looking up the Act's appointment/eligibility chapters to find any explicit prohibitions on concurrent legislative membership.

Specifies the Lokpal's jurisdiction includes Members of Parliament, showing the Act expressly deals with MPs as subjects of its authority.

One could infer the Act differentiates roles of MPs (as persons subject to Lokpal) versus eligibility rules for office‑holders, prompting a check of incompatibility clauses for Lokpal office‑holders.

Notes the Lokpal Act amended other statutes (e.g., Delhi Special Police Establishment Act) to change institutional composition and appointment procedures, showing the Act includes detailed appointment/qualification mechanics.

Use this pattern to expect and inspect similar appointment/qualification provisions in the Lokpal Act text that might prohibit membership of legislatures.

Gives an example where statute(s) impose ineligibilities on holders of high constitutional/statutory offices (e.g., Public Service Commission chairmen) for subsequent employment, illustrating a legislative practice of prescribing eligibility/ineligibility rules for office‑holders.

A student could generalise this legislative pattern to anticipate that the Lokpal Act may likewise contain specific disqualification or incompatibility rules and thus check the Act for such clauses.

Explains that certain presiding offices in Parliament are filled from among members, showing that some high offices are explicitly tied to legislative membership while others are not.

Compare this example of offices drawn from MPs with the Lokpal office to see whether the Lokpal Chairperson/Members are drawn from or prohibited from legislative membership by statute.

The First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended that the Lokpal be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, showing historical linkage between Lokpal appointments and the CJI.

A student could check whether the 2013 Act kept, strengthened, or changed this recommended consultative role to infer if the chair must be a CJI.

Shows a clear pattern in Indian statutory bodies (NHRC) where the chairperson is explicitly required to be a retired Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.

Use this pattern as a comparative template: examine the Lokpal Act text to see if it follows the same requirement language.

States that the Lokpal Act did not make Lokpal a constitutional body and that the judiciary was excluded from the ambit of the Lokpal, suggesting a deliberate separation from the judiciary.

A student could infer this exclusion might argue against requiring the Chair to be (or have been) CJI and so look for statutory language in the Act that confirms or rejects that inference.

Gives an example where the Chief Justice of India is a formal member of high-level appointment committees (CBI Director), indicating CJI involvement is a common feature in selecting anti-corruption or oversight officials.

Compare the appointment committee composition in the Lokpal Act to see whether CJI participation is merely consultative or whether the statute specifies CJI status as a qualification for the Chair.

Describes the Lokpal Act's scope and enactment but does not specify composition—this gap flags that the required qualifications for Chair must be checked in the Act text itself.

A student should consult the Act's specific provisions on Lokpal composition/qualifications to resolve whether CJI status is mandated.

This snippet identifies the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) as a distinct statute covering composition/features, implying its provisions (including eligibility) are specified in the Act.

A student could use this to locate the Act's text and check the eligibility clause for any minimum age requirement.

Shows a pattern for other national bodies (NHRC) where office-holders have an explicit upper age limit (70) stated in their constituting rules.

Compare this common legislative practice (explicit upper age) with the Lokpal Act to see whether it likewise states age limits and whether it mentions a minimum age.

Gives an example (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights) where both term and explicit upper age limits (65 for chair, 60 for members) are specified.

Use this as an example of how such statutes often set maximum ages, so absence of a minimum in summaries of other Acts suggests minimum ages are not always specified and must be checked in the Lokpal Act itself.

Another statutory body (State Human Rights Commission) again shows the common rule of specifying an upper age (70) for office-holders.

A student could generalize that Indian oversight bodies frequently set retirement ages — therefore to test the claim about a 45-year minimum, one should inspect the Lokpal Act's eligibility provisions rather than rely on analogy.

Describes CAG's term and vacating on attaining age 65 — reinforcing the pattern that statutes commonly include an upper age/retirement rule.

Use this pattern to infer that age rules in Indian statutes typically address maximum age/retirement; hence, a 45-year minimum would be atypical and warrants direct verification in the Lokpal Act text.