Constitutional Mechanics of Territorial Alteration

The second and third statements are accurate. Settling a boundary dispute does not require an amendment (as per the Supreme Court), but formally ceding recognized territory (like the enclaves in the 100th Amendment) absolutely requires an Article 368 amendment. The first statement is false because Article 3 deals with altering the *internal* boundaries of existing states; it is Article 2 that deals with the admission or establishment of *new* states that were not previously part of the Union.

The Assertion is true, establishing the boundary between executive power and parliamentary amendment power. Both Reasons perfectly support this: Reason 1 explains why border dispute resolutions don't need amendments (no actual cession of recognized land), and Reason 2 explains why the 100th Amendment was necessary for the Bangladesh enclave exchange (actual cession of recognized land).

The second strategy is correct. Article 2 deals specifically with the admission or establishment of new states that are *not* currently part of the Union (Event X). Article 3 deals specifically with the formation of new states by altering the boundaries, separating, or uniting *existing* states within the Union (Event Y). Both can be done via ordinary law, making the third scenario (using Article 368) false.

Only two claims are verifiable (Statements 2 and 3: border settlements and the 100th Amendment). Statement 1 is false (Article 2 admits foreign territories, Article 3 alters internal ones). Statement 4 is false (internal boundary alterations under Article 3 are explicitly exempt from the rigid Article 368 process and can be passed by a simple majority).