All of the above are correct.
Fundamental Rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions. Further, they are not sacrosanct and can be curtailed or repealed by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment act. They promote the idea of political democracy. DPSP promote the idea of social and economic democracy. Most of them are directly enforceable (self-executory) while a few of them can be enforced on the basis of a law made for giving effect to them. Such a law can be made only by the Parliament and not by state legislatures so that uniformity throughout the country is maintained (Article 35).

Both 1 and 2 are correct.
The Fundamental Rights operate as limitations on the tyranny of the executive and arbitrary laws of the legislature. They are justiciable in nature, that is, they are enforceable by the courts for their violation. The aggrieved person can directly go to the Supreme Court which can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto for the restoration of his rights.

1 and 4 are correct.
Statement 1 – The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution. Hence, it cannot be abridged or taken away even by way of an amendment to the Constitution.
• Statement 2 – Only the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be enforced under Article 32 and not any other right like non-fundamental constitutional rights, statutory rights, customary rights and so on.
• Statement 3 – In case of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226.
• Statement 4 – Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to determine the constitutionality of an executive order or a legislation unless it directly infringes any of the fundamental rights.

1, 2 and 3 are correct.
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared a particular provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.
(ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) – 1976: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies.

Both 1 and 2 are correct.
Part III of the Constitution is rightly described as the Magna Carta of India. It contains a very long and comprehensive list of ‘justiciable’ Fundamental Rights. In fact, the Fundamental Rights in our Constitution are more elaborate than those found in the Constitution of any other country in the world, including the USA. The Fundamental Rights are named so because they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land.