Explanation : 

Analysis of Statement 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.”

• The 10th Schedule (Anti-defection Law) deals with disqualification on grounds of defection.
• If a question arises regarding disqualification under the 10th Schedule, the decision is referred to the Chairman (for Rajya Sabha) or the Speaker (for Lok Sabha) of such House, and their decision is final (though subject to judicial review).
• The President’s role in disqualification is primarily under Article 103, which deals with disqualifications mentioned in Article 102 (e.g., holding an office of profit, unsound mind, not being a citizen). In such cases, the President’s decision is final, but only after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission and acting according to that opinion, not the Council of Union Ministers.

Therefore, Statement I is incorrect because the deciding authority for 10th Schedule disqualifications is the Speaker/Chairman, not the President, and even for Article 102 disqualifications, the President acts on the Election Commission’s advice, not the Council of Union Ministers.

Analysis of Statement II: “There is no mention of the word ‘political party’ in the Constitution of India.”

• The word ‘political party’ is mentioned in the Constitution of India.
• Specifically, the Tenth Schedule (Anti-defection Law), added by the 52nd Amendment Act in 1985, explicitly uses the term ‘political party’ multiple times.
• Before the 52nd Amendment, the term ‘political party’ was not recognized in the Constitution, but its introduction with the Anti-defection law gave political parties constitutional recognition.

Therefore, Statement II is incorrect.