Centralized Enforcement of Part III

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. The desire for national uniformity is the exact reason Article 35 denies states the power to legislate on Part III punishments. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. States do NOT have concurrent jurisdiction here; Article 35 explicitly forbids state legislatures from prescribing punishments for these acts. The correct counterpart is the total denial of state legislative power regarding Part III offenses. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Article 35 empowers Parliament to make laws enforcing FRs even if the specific mechanism touches upon a State List subject.

The Assertion is correct. A state assembly cannot pass such a penal law. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. This power belongs exclusively to the Union Parliament to ensure uniform punishments nationwide. Reason (R2) is factually false. Untouchability is a severe constitutional offense (Art 17) actively punished by law (Protection of Civil Rights Act). The correct counterpart is its status as a punishable constitutional offense.

Statement 1 is incorrect. While criminal law is generally concurrent, anything enforcing a specific Fundamental Right offense (like Art 23) is governed by Article 35, which overrides general lists and centralizes power. The correct counterpart is Parliamentary exclusivity. Statement 2 is correct. Article 35 explicitly denies this power to the states to ensure uniformity of fundamental rights across India. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Supreme Court does not grant legislative permissions; the Constitution outright denies the states this power.

Statement 1 is correct. National uniformity is the primary objective of Art 35. Statement 2 is correct. State legislatures are barred from making penal laws for Part III offenses. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 35 EXTENDS Parliament's competence, allowing it to override the State List if necessary to enforce a Fundamental Right. The correct counterpart is Parliamentary override power. Statement 4 is incorrect. Neither Article 35 nor the High Courts define untouchability; the term is left undefined in the Constitution. The correct counterpart is the absence of a definition. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.