A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the content of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.