Meta-Amendments and Constitutional Rigidity

Statement 3 is correct. Article 368 deals with the amendment process. Because it is the mechanism that safeguards federalism, altering Article 368 itself requires a Special Majority in Parliament AND ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures by simple majority. Statement 1 is incorrect as a simple majority is insufficient. Statement 2 is incorrect; while the basic structure cannot be destroyed, Article 368 can still be amended as long as it doesn't violate that structure.

Both A and R are true, and R perfectly explains A. If Parliament wants to make the Constitution easier to amend (e.g., by removing state ratification), it must amend Article 368. However, under the proviso to Article 368(2), amending Article 368 itself requires state ratification, preventing Parliament from unilaterally stripping the states of their constitutional veto power.

Option 2 is the correct constitutional requirement. The 'Meta-Amendment Bill' seeks to amend Article 368. According to the proviso in Article 368(2), any amendment to Article 368 itself requires a Special Majority in Parliament AND ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Therefore, the states must ironically vote to remove their own veto power for the bill to pass.

Two conditions are correct (the first and second). Amending Article 368 requires both a Parliamentary Special Majority and State Ratification. The third statement is a distractor; while the Supreme Court can strike down a law post-enactment for violating the Basic Structure, there is no constitutional requirement for pre-approval by a judicial bench during the legislative process.