Navigating the Liberty-Equality Dichotomy

The first, third, and fourth statements are accurate. Article 14 allows 'reasonable classification' (differentiation) for equity; Article 31-C shields certain DPSP implementations from Article 14 challenges; and affirmative action is a core constitutional tool. The second statement is false because the Constitution strictly maintains a balance between Liberty and Equality, without giving inherent structural preference to one over the other.

The Assertion is true; Article 14 is not an absolute barrier against treating people differently. Reason 1 correctly supports this by identifying the doctrines of 'reasonable classification' and affirmative action. Reason 2 is constitutionally false because the Indian state seeks a delicate balance between Liberty and Equality; it does not subordinate Liberty entirely.

The first strategy is correct. Article 31-C was specifically inserted into the Constitution to protect laws that give effect to the Directive Principles found in Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged or declared void on the grounds that they violate the Right to Equality (Article 14). The second strategy is false because Equality is not legally superior to Liberty. The third strategy misinterprets the primary use of Article 14 in this specific DPSP conflict.

Three statements are valid (Statements 1, 3, and 4). The state can differentiate for equity, bypass Article 14 using Article 31-C, and use affirmative action. Statement 2 is false because the Constitution maintains a balance between Liberty and Equality, without elevating one to supremacy over the other.