Statement:\n“Government employees, including doctors in state-run hospitals and dispensaries, have no right—fundamental, legal, moral, or equitable—to go on strike,” rules the Supreme Court.\n\nAssumptions:\nI. Government employees hold society to ransom by going on strike.\nII. The strike weapon is mostly misused, causing chaos and maladministration.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions is implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
The Court categorically states that government employees have no right to strike. We must identify which beliefs must be true for this legal pronouncement to stand. Does the ruling require assuming harmful motives/effects of strikes (I/II), or is it grounded in normative–legal reasoning independent of empirical consequences?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ruling: No right (fundamental, legal, moral, equitable) to strike for government employees including doctors.
• Assumption I: Strikers hold society to ransom.
• Assumption II: Strikes are mostly misused and cause chaos.

Concept / Approach:
A legal conclusion about the existence (or absence) of a right can rest on constitutional principles, statutory frameworks, and public duty doctrines—not necessarily on factual assumptions about typical effects or abuses. The Court’s statement can be justified by the special obligations of essential services, continuity of governance, and the availability of alternative grievance redressal mechanisms, without presuming that all or most strikes equate to ransom or misuse.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Reading a rights-based pronouncement as contingent on typical outcomes. Rights determinations can be categorical, not consequentialist.

Final Answer:
Neither Assumption I nor II is implicit.