Pragmatic Constraints on Constitutional Rights

The third statement is correct. The primary reason the framers made DPSPs non-justiciable was pragmatic: the newly independent Indian state simply lacked the vast financial resources required to legally guarantee expansive socio-economic rights (like a living wage or free education) for everyone. The first and second statements are incorrect; avoiding FR conflict or protecting legislative turf were not the primary historical drivers; economic reality was.

The Assertion is true; the framers made DPSP non-justiciable despite their fundamental importance. Reason 1 correctly supports this by highlighting the financial and pragmatic impossibility of enforcing these rights in 1950s India. Reason 2 is completely historically false; the framers desperately wanted socio-economic development, they just couldn't afford to guarantee it in court yet.

The second argument is historically accurate. The primary reason the DPSP chapter was made non-justiciable was India's severe financial backwardness at the time of independence. The framers realized that legally guaranteeing expensive socio-economic entitlements (unlike free speech, which costs nothing) would put the struggling, newly born state in impossible legal and financial difficulty.

Only two motivations are valid (Statements 1 and 3: scarce financial resources and massive backwardness making enforcement impractical). Statement 2 is a false attribution; the framers did not make DPSP non-justiciable specifically to ensure the 'supremacy' of Fundamental Rights; they did it purely out of pragmatic economic necessity.