Intersectional Constitutional Violations

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Forcing a caste into 'impure' labor is the textbook definition of untouchability (Art 17). Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Denying job mobility violates the Article 19(1)(g) right to choose a profession. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. Pushing children into hazardous work violates Article 24 (Right against Exploitation). Article 30 is about establishing minority schools, which is irrelevant to this specific scenario of forced child labor. The correct counterpart is the violation of anti-exploitation laws.

The Assertion is correct. Systemic oppression crosses multiple constitutional boundaries. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. It perfectly captures the intersection of Art 17 (social degradation) and Art 19 (economic restriction). Reason (R2) is factually false. Article 300-A is a Constitutional/Legal right, NOT a Fundamental Right. The correct counterpart is the downgraded legal status of property rights.

Statement 1 is correct. It accurately identifies the three intersecting violations: caste-based degradation (17), occupational restriction (19), and hazardous child labor (24). Statement 2 is incorrect. Article 30 deals with establishing minority-run schools, not the general right to attend school or avoid child labor. The correct counterpart is the irrelevance of Article 30 to forced labor. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 300A is not a Fundamental Right, and choosing a profession falls under Article 19, not property rights.

Article 17 is a Fundamental Right and is violated (caste coercion). Article 19 is a Fundamental Right and is violated (denial of job choice). Article 24 is a Fundamental Right and is violated (children forced into hazardous scavenging). Article 300A is NOT a Fundamental Right (it is a Constitutional right). The correct counterpart is its exclusion from Part III. Thus, exactly three are applicable Fundamental Rights.