Exceptions and Enforcement of Part III

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are contradictory. Fundamental rights are directly guaranteed by the Supreme Court; citizens can bypass the High Court entirely via Article 32. The correct counterpart is direct SC access. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Article 19 is suspended ONLY during external emergencies (war/external aggression), not internal armed rebellions. The correct counterpart is that Article 19 survives internal emergencies. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Article 35 strictly reserves the power to penalize FR violations to the Parliament, forbidding state legislatures.

The Assertion is correct. The rights of uniformed personnel can indeed be restricted. Reason (R1) is factually false. The President does not have this power via executive fiat. The correct counterpart is that legislative action is required. Reason (R2) is factually correct. Article 33 specifically grants this restricting power exclusively to the Parliament.

Statement 1 is incorrect. States do not have concurrent jurisdiction for enforcing penal provisions of Part III. The correct counterpart is that only Parliament has this power. Statement 2 is correct. Article 35 centralizes the legislative power to enforce Fundamental Rights strictly in the hands of Parliament to ensure nationwide uniformity. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Supreme Court reviews laws post-enactment; it does not grant prior legislative approval.

Statement 1 is incorrect. While most are self-executory, several (like untouchability and trafficking) require parliamentary laws (Article 35) to specify punishments. The correct counterpart is that some rights demand enabling legislation. Statement 2 is correct. Article 19 is insulated from internal 'armed rebellion' emergencies. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 32 allows direct access to the Supreme Court without prior High Court litigation. Statement 4 is correct. Article 33 empowers Parliament to dictate the rights restrictions of disciplined forces.