Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Patel, an elected member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), voluntarily left his political party owing to ideological differences in the case of Ramesh Patel v. State of India. He nevertheless continued to take part in Assembly business and cast votes on several proposals. A petition contesting Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Constitutions Tenth Schedule was then submitted to the High Court. Ramesh Patel was declared ineligible by the High Court after it determined that his exit from the political party constituted voluntary withdrawal under the Tenth Schedule. Ramesh Patel files an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that his exclusion was unfair and infringed on his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.a)Ramesh Patels disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is a breach of his fundamental rights, which are protected by the Constitution, hence the Supreme Court should sustain his appeal and award him redress.b)The Tenth Schedules clause should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court since it violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and allows anyone to leave a political party without being barred from running for office.c)In light of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should refer the case to a bigger bench for review of the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedules provisions.d)The Supreme Court should affirm the High Courts ruling because, in accordance with the Tenth Schedule, leaving a political party voluntarily results in disqualification and because the limitations placed on Ramesh Patels freedom to association are reasonable and necessary to preserve political stability.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.