Assertion (A): Reasonable restrictions, as per the Indian Constitution, cannot be imposed by the state arbitrarily. 

Reason (R): The restrictions can be imposed only according to law, subject to judicial review.

(A) Both (A) and (R) are true.

(B) Both (A) and (R) are 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.

Correct Ans: (A)

Explanation:

The Indian Constitution safeguards fundamental rights while allowing the state to impose reasonable restrictions. However, the state cannot act on a whim. It must follow due legal procedures. This ensures a democratic balance between freedom and regulation.

The assertion correctly points out that arbitrary restrictions are not allowed. The reason complements it by explaining how the law must govern such restrictions. Additionally, courts play a vital role in reviewing these limitations. Judicial scrutiny ensures fairness, transparency, and adherence to constitutional values.

Article 19, for instance, allows citizens several freedoms. But it also permits restrictions under specific conditions like public order or national security. These must remain fair and proportionate. The government must justify each restriction in legal terms, not political convenience.

In V.G. Row vs. State of Madras, the Supreme Court emphasized that reasonableness lies at the heart of such laws. Judges assess whether the restrictions serve legitimate interests without undermining core freedoms. They act as constitutional guardians in this process.

Moreover, this framework prevents the misuse of power. Lawmakers must think critically before limiting any right. They face judicial review if they exceed their mandate. This legal safeguard reinforces the credibility of India’s democracy.

To conclude, both the assertion and the reason stand correct. Together, they reflect a system where freedom remains protected, and power remains accountable—exactly as the Constitution intends.