Q.Which is NOT a reasonable explanation of legislature-judiciary conflict over amendments? (5 options re: interpretation, democracy, basic structure, judiciary vs legislature trust, judiciary's limited role.)

Among the explanations offered for judiciary-legislature conflict over amendments, the claim that the legislature simply "cannot be entrusted" with protecting citizens' rights goes too far and does not fit the chapter's own account. …

1. Reasonable. The chapter directly shows that different interpretations of the Constitution are genuinely possible — the 1970-75 clashes over Fundamental Rights versus Directive Principles, the right to property, and the scope of the amending power all arose because Parliament and the judiciary read the same text differently.
2. Reasonable. The chapter treats debate and disagreement as a normal, even healthy, part of democratic politics — "in a democracy, politics is necessarily full of debates and differences... that is a sign of diversity, liveliness and openness."
3. Reasonable. The Constitution genuinely gives higher protection to certain rules and principles (through the basic structure doctrine, which limits what even a special majority can change) while still allowing amendment by special majority for everything else — this exact tension between rigidity and flexibility is what the chapter describes as underlining both the rigid and the flexible nature of the amending process. …