Exclusive Civic Entitlements and Qualifications

The first and second statements are accurate. Article 19 freedoms (speech, assembly, etc.) are available only to citizens. Article 124(3) demands a Supreme Court Judge must be an Indian citizen. The third statement is factually false. Unlike the United States (which restricts the presidency to natural-born citizens), the Indian Constitution makes no distinction; a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen are both equally eligible to become the President of India.

The Assertion is true; India treats all citizens equally regardless of how they got their citizenship. Reason 1 provides excellent support by highlighting that naturalized citizens can become President (unlike in the US). Reason 2 is legally false; the President does NOT have dictatorial power over citizenship. Article 11 empowers the Parliament exclusively to make laws regarding citizenship.

The second maneuver is correct. The prosecuting attorney will point out that the six fundamental freedoms codified under Article 19 (including freedom of speech and expression) are explicitly available *only* to citizens of India. Because the journalist is a foreign national, they cannot legally claim protection under Article 19. (They could, however, claim protection under Article 21, right to life, which applies to everyone).

Only two claims are verifiable (Statements 2 and 3: Article 19 is for citizens only, and SC Judges must be citizens). Statement 1 is false (Article 11 empowers Parliament, not the President, to make citizenship rules). Statement 4 is false (India allows naturalized citizens to become President, rejecting the native birthright restriction used in the USA).