1 and 2 are correct.
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restored the freedom of the press to publish true reports of parliamentary proceedings without prior permission of the House. But this is not applicable in the case of a secret sitting of the House.
The courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a House or its committees.
Members cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of a session. This privilege is available only in civil cases and not in criminal cases or preventive detention cases.

1, 2, 3 and 4 are correct.
The factors that limit the sovereignty of Indian Parliament are:
Written Nature of the Constitution: Parliament has to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
Federal System of Government: The law-making authority of the Parliament gets confined to the subjects enumerated in the Union List and Concurrent List and does not extend to the subjects enumerated in the State List (except in five abnormal circumstances and that too for a short period).
System of Judicial Review: The adoption of an independent Judiciary with the power of judicial review also restricts the supremacy of our Parliament.
Fundamental Rights: The authority of the Parliament is also restricted by the incorporation of a code of justiciable fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Fundamental duties does not limit the sovereignty of Indian Parliament.

1 and 2 are correct.
Constitutional existence of several tiers of government is the first pre-requisite of a federal polity.
Under federalism, the states do not derive their authority from the Centre, but from the Constitution. While the centre may direct the states to perform certain actions, the fact is that they are an independent tier of government.
The Constitution contains lists that detail the issues that each tier of government can make laws on. All persons in India are governed by laws and policies made by each of these levels of government.

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.
The 42nd Amendment Act accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31. However, this extension was declared as unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case.

The Constitution lays down only two qualifications for the appointment of a person as a governor. These are:
1. He should be a citizen of India.
2. He should have completed the age of 35 years.
Additionally, two conventions have also developed in this regard over the years.
First, he should be an outsider, that is, he should not belong to the state where he is appointed, so that he is free from the local politics.
Second, while appointing the governor, the president is required to consult the chief minister of the state concerned, So that the smooth functioning of the constitutional machinery in the state is ensured. However, both the conventions have been violated in some of the cases