Question

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as 'Assertion' (A) and the other as 'Reason' (R). Examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answer.

Assertion (A): The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the fundamental rights is guaranteed as a fundamental right.

Reason (R): Supreme Court of India has been appointed as the guardian of the Constitution.

• A. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A.
• B. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
• C. A is true but R is false.
• D. A is false but R is true.

Hint:

Ask why the framers guaranteed a direct route to the Supreme Court and put that remedy inside Part III. The answer lies in the role the Court was designed to play.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
Statement A restates Article 32(1). Statement R describes the role of the Supreme Court. Test each for truth, then ask whether R gives the reason for A.

Step 2: Testing statement A:
Article 32(1) says the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III is guaranteed.
Article 32 sits inside Part III itself, so the remedy is not just a procedure but a fundamental right in its own right. Article 32(4) adds that this right cannot be suspended except as the Constitution provides.
Dr Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution, the one article he would not consent to have removed. So A is true.

Step 3: Testing statement R:
The Supreme Court is the guardian and final interpreter of the Constitution. It is also called the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, a description drawn from Article 32 itself.
The word "appointed" is loose, since the Court is established by the Constitution rather than appointed by anyone, but the substance of R is correct. R is true.

Step 4: Does R explain A?
Ask why the framers made the remedy itself a fundamental right, and why they routed it straight to the Supreme Court rather than to a lower court.
The answer is that the Supreme Court was designed to be the guardian of the Constitution and of the rights it confers. A right without a remedy is worthless, so the framers gave every person a guaranteed door to the guardian court.
R states exactly that design. The Court's role as guardian is why the right of direct access to it was elevated to a fundamental right and placed inside Part III. So R does explain A.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) denies the link, but the guardianship role is precisely what justifies making access to the Court a guaranteed right.
Option (C) calls R false, which it is not in substance.
Option (D) calls A false, but Article 32 plainly guarantees the right.

Step 6: Final Answer:
Both statements are true, and the Court's role as guardian of the Constitution is the reason the right of access under Article 32 was itself made fundamental.
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (A)}} \]