Positive Secularism and Constitutional Immortality

The second and third statements are accurate. Indian secularism is a 'positive' concept that allows state intervention (e.g., to abolish oppressive religious practices), and the Supreme Court (in the S.R. Bommai case, 1994) declared it part of the basic structure. The first statement is false; the 'strict wall of separation' is the Western (US/French) model of secularism, a rigid approach which the Indian Constitution explicitly rejected.

The Assertion is true; parliament cannot destroy the secular character. Reason 1 correctly supports this by citing the S.R. Bommai case integrating secularism into the basic structure. Reason 2 is legally false because India does not use the Western strict separation model; instead, it uses a 'principled distance' model allowing for positive state intervention.

The second correction is sound. The lawyer's argument relies on the Western definition of secularism (strict separation). The opposing counsel would correctly note that Indian secularism is a 'positive' concept that permits 'principled intervention' by the state in religious affairs for purposes like social reform or preventing corruption. The first statement is blatantly false; the 1994 S.R. Bommai case actually added secularism to the basic structure.

Only two claims are valid (Statements 2 and 3). Indian secularism allows positive intervention, and it is part of the basic structure (S.R. Bommai case). Statement 1 is false because a 'strict separation' is a Western concept entirely rejected by the Indian framers.