Definition and Characteristics of Part III

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. The defining trait of a Fundamental Right is its direct protection by the foundational text of the Constitution. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Ordinary legal rights can be altered by simple parliamentary majorities and lack the supreme enforcement mechanisms (like Art 32) of Fundamental Rights. The correct counterpart is the hierarchical superiority of constitutional rights. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Because the state can impose 'reasonable restrictions', the rights are qualified, not absolute.

The Assertion is correct. The rights are not absolute. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. The doctrine of reasonable restrictions makes them qualified. Reason (R2) is factually false. They are supreme constitutional guarantees, not ordinary statutes, and police cannot suspend them. The correct counterpart is their elevated constitutional status.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Constitution does not list 'all' rights (e.g., right to vote is legal, not fundamental). The correct counterpart is the specific, curated nature of Part III. Statement 2 is incorrect. Fundamental Rights are NOT immune to restriction; they are subject to reasonable restrictions. The correct counterpart is their qualified nature. Statement 3 is correct. It accurately defines them by their constitutional guarantee without falsely claiming they are absolute.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Ordinary laws provide many other rights (like property or voting) outside Part III. The correct counterpart is that they form a specific, restricted catalog. Statement 2 is correct. Constitutional protection separates them from ordinary statutes. Statement 3 is incorrect. They are subject to reasonable restrictions and are not absolute. The correct counterpart is their qualified status. Statement 4 is correct. They protect individuals from state tyranny. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.