Hierarchy of State Authority

The third statement provides the correct legal reasoning. The Parliament is a creation of the Constitution; it derives its very existence, jurisdiction, and procedural powers from the text. Therefore, the creator is superior to the creation. Chronology (Statement 2) or the eminence of the framers (Statement 1) are not legal justifications for supremacy. Statement 4 is false because Parliament is explicitly forbidden from altering the Basic Structure by the Supreme Court.

The Assertion is true; India lacks absolute British-style parliamentary sovereignty. Both Reasons provide historically and legally accurate support: Reason 1 defines Constitutional Supremacy, and Reason 2 explains the structural reason for it (Parliament is a creation of the Constitution).

The second principle is correct. The Supreme Court would rely on the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy. Because the Constitution provides for the formation, powers, and limits of the Parliament, Parliament is a creation of the Constitution and cannot legally usurp or override the authority of the text that gave it life.

Only the third argument is legally valid. The Constitution is supreme because it defines and limits the Parliament. The first argument (eminence of authors) and second argument (chronology) are emotional and historical observations, not valid structural or legal justifications for constitutional supremacy.