Exemptions from Constitutional Rigidity

Statement 2 is correct. The Concurrent List deals with the federal distribution of powers; amending it strictly falls under Article 368 (requiring Special Majority + State Ratification). Statements 1 (new states) and 3 (abolishing legislative councils) are explicitly excluded from Article 368 and are achieved via a simple parliamentary majority.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A. The Constitution deliberately keeps certain administrative and territorial scaling mechanisms—like constituency delimitation and the creation of new states—flexible. They are executed via ordinary legislation (simple majority) and are explicitly declared not to be amendments under Article 368.

Option 2 is correct. Bill Alpha (Concurrent List) alters federalism; it MUST be processed under Article 368 with a Special Majority and State Ratification, so passing it with a simple majority is invalid. Bill Beta (new state) falls completely outside Article 368 and is perfectly valid when passed with a simple majority.

Two statements are correct (the second and third). Delimitation and Legislative Councils are amended by a Simple Majority outside Article 368. The first statement is the distractor; the GST Council represents federal financial architecture and strictly requires the rigorous Article 368 procedure (Special Majority + State consent).