Historical Critiques of Constitutional Legitimacy

The first and fourth statements are valid historical criticisms; the members were indirectly elected (lacking universal adult franchise), and the Indian National Congress overwhelmingly dominated the seats. The second statement is false; the Assembly was highly functional as the Dominion Legislature, passing ordinary laws. The third statement is false; a primary criticism is actually the opposite—that the Assembly was heavily over-dominated by lawyers.

The Assertion is true; critics often call it elitist and unrepresentative. Reason 1 correctly supports this by pointing out the indirect elections and restricted franchise. Reason 2 is historically false; the assembly did not exclude lawyers. In fact, a major criticism of the body was its overwhelming 'lawyer-politician domination' which allegedly made the final text overly complex.

The second argument is correct. You can factually critique the Assembly for lacking direct election via universal adult franchise. The first argument is false because the Assembly did pass ordinary laws while sitting as the Dominion Legislature. The third argument is false because the Congress Party held a massive, dominating majority, not a tiny minority.

Only two critiques are valid (Statements 1 and 4 regarding indirect elections and one-party dominance). Statement 2 is false (it did function as a parliament). Statement 3 is false (it was heavily dominated, not suppressed, by lawyers).