The Philosophical Locus of Sovereign Power

The first and second statements are accurate. The Basic Structure doctrine limits Parliament's amending power, and the Judiciary is the final authority on deciding its scope. The third statement is conceptually false. The doctrine does NOT promote 'Judicial Supremacy'; rather, it promotes 'Constitutional Supremacy' by declaring that the core features of the Constitution itself are supreme and untouchable by any branch, including the courts.

The Assertion is true; India lacks UK-style Parliamentary Supremacy due to the Basic Structure. Reason 1 correctly supports this by identifying the limitation on Parliament's amending power. Reason 2 is completely false; the doctrine does *not* establish Judicial Supremacy or give law-making power to judges; it establishes Constitutional Supremacy.

The second evaluation is accurate. Theorist B is correct. It is a common misconception (held by Theorist A) that the Basic Structure promotes Judicial Supremacy. In reality, political science defines this dynamic as 'Constitutional Supremacy.' The Judiciary acts merely as a guardian; the ultimate supreme authority that cannot be altered or defied is the core architecture of the Constitution itself.

Three realities are conceptually valid (Statements 1, 2, and 4: limiting Parliament, judicial interpretation, and promoting Constitutional Supremacy). Statement 3 is entirely false; the doctrine aggressively promotes Constitutional Supremacy, explicitly avoiding the establishment of absolute Judicial Supremacy.