Explanation:

• Statement 1st is correct: In the Kesavananda Bharti case, the Court for the first time expounded on its power to review amendments to the constitution.
• Statement 2nd is correct: It was only through such an exposition that the 39th Amendment Act was struck down in the Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case.

The power of judicial review

• The power of judicial review is often sought to be branded as judicial overreach. Such generalisations are misguided. 
• The Constitution created three co-equal organs, and in this context, the judiciary has been given the role of reviewing the legality of steps taken by the other two organs. 
• If the judiciary does not have the power of judicial review, then the functioning of democracy in this country would be unthinkable.

What are the concerns now?

• There is usually no impact assessment or basic scrutiny of constitutionality before passing of legislation. The minimum that is expected while drafting laws is that they abide by settled Constitutional principles. 
• They must also think of providing effective remedies for issues that may arise out of the law. But these principles seemingly are being ignored. This directly results in the clogging of courts.
• At times, there are also concerted campaigns in print and social media against judges if parties do not get a favourable order.
• Rising number of media trials: New media tools have the enormous amplifying ability but appear to be incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad and the real and fake. 

Judicial review present in India

• The power of Judicial Review comes from the Constitution of India itself (Articles 13, 32, 136, 142 and 147 of the Constitution).
• The power of judicial review is evoked to protect and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
• Article 13 of the Constitution prohibits the Parliament and the state legislatures from making laws that “may take away or abridge the fundamental rights” guaranteed to the citizens of the country.
• The provisions of Article 13 ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and consider any law “inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights” as void.

Hence option 3rd is correct.