Implicit Constitutional Doctrines

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Courts hold that violating natural justice (like denying a hearing) is inherently arbitrary, which directly violates Article 14. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. The phrase is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution; it is entirely reliant on judicial interpretations of Articles 14 and 21. The correct counterpart is the reliance on judicial expansion of due process. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Being a judge in one's own cause is a fundamental breach of unbiased decision-making.

The Assertion is correct. The court enforces it via implied rights. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. Articles 14 and 21 serve as the constitutional anchors for these unwritten principles. Reason (R2) is factually false. There is no such constitutional amendment or explicit DPSP definition. The correct counterpart is its status as a judicially implied doctrine.

Statement 1 is incorrect. There is no 'Natural Justice Clause' in Article 19 or anywhere in the Constitution. The correct counterpart is the lack of explicit textual clauses for this doctrine. Statement 2 is correct. This is the standard legal mechanism in Indian jurisprudence: equating a violation of Natural Justice (bias, no hearing) with a violation of Article 14 (arbitrariness/equality). Statement 3 is incorrect. The SC doesn't need to create a new right; the protection already exists implicitly within Article 14 and 21.

Statement 1 is correct. 'Audi alteram partem' (fair hearing) is a core pillar. Statement 2 is incorrect. It is not explicitly codified in the text anywhere. The correct counterpart is its judicially implied nature. Statement 3 is correct. The SC routinely links these concepts. Statement 4 is correct. 'Nemo judex in causa sua' (rule against bias) is a core pillar. Thus, exactly three statements are correct.