Legal Integration of Geopolitical Additions

The second and third statements are accurate. India acquires territory through international law modes (treaty, purchase, conquest), and because there are no distinct rules for 'acquired territories', they are administered using the provisions governing Union Territories. The first statement is false; while *ceding* territory requires a constitutional amendment, the *acquisition* of foreign territory does not require a Constitutional Amendment Bill.

The Assertion is true; the system handles expansion efficiently. Both Reasons provide excellent conceptual support: Reason 1 explains the lack of amendment gridlock during acquisition, and Reason 2 explains the immediate administrative solution (defaulting to UT rules).

The third response is correct. The acquisition of territory by a sovereign state is governed by international law (e.g., purchase or treaty) and does not necessitate a constitutional amendment. Furthermore, until formal reorganization occurs, the island will simply be administered de facto using the established constitutional provisions designed for Union Territories.

Only two claims are valid (Statements 2 and 4). Acquisition relies on international law modalities, and the zones are administered like Union Territories. Statement 1 is false (acquisition does not require a constitutional amendment). Statement 3 is false (they default to UT protocols, not constituent State protocols).