Constitutional Shielding of Socialist Economics

Only the second and third statements are accurate. Article 31C was added by the 25th Amendment to overturn the Golaknath ruling, and it protects laws implementing 39(b) and (c) from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The first statement is false because protecting acts in the Ninth Schedule is the specific function of Article 31(B), not 31C. The fourth statement is false because the explicit dictate against the concentration of wealth is the text of Article 39(c) itself, not the text of Article 31C (which merely acts as the shield for 39c).

The Assertion is true; the amendment diluted FRs in favor of specific DPSPs. Reason 1 correctly explains how this was done via Article 31C shielding 39(b) and (c). Reason 2 is historically false. The amendment was introduced in 1971 to overturn the *Golaknath* case (1967). The Kesavananda Bharati case did not happen until 1973, and it actually *upheld* the validity of this specific part of Article 31C.

The second argument is procedurally sound. This is the exact, intended function of Article 31C. If a law is enacted to give effect to the socialist directives in Article 39(b) [distribution of material resources] and Article 39(c) [prevention of wealth concentration], Article 31C provides an impenetrable shield preventing that specific law from being struck down on the grounds that it violates the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) or freedom (Article 19). The Ninth schedule defense belongs to Article 31B, not 31C.

Only two attributes are valid (Statements 2 and 4: overturning Golaknath and immunizing 39b/c against 14/19). Statement 1 is false (safeguarding the Ninth Schedule is the job of Article 31B). Statement 3 is false because Article 31C does the exact opposite: it establishes the legal supremacy of specific socialist directives *over* the Right to Equality.