Option 1 states that both statements are individually true and statement II is the correct explanation of statement I. To evaluate this option, let`s look at each statement separately.

Statement I: The principle of equality before the law is not applicable to the President of India.

This statement implies that the President of India is not treated equally before the law. In other words, the President may have certain exemptions or special treatment under the law.

Statement II: The President of India enjoys some special privileges under the Constitution of India.

This statement suggests that the President has specific rights or benefits granted to them by the Constitution. These privileges could include immunity from certain legal proceedings or limitations on legal actions against the President.

Based on these explanations, it is clear that both statements are true. However, option 1 claims that statement II is the correct explanation for statement I. This is not accurate. While statement II provides further details about the special privileges enjoyed by the President, it doesn`t directly explain why the principle of equality before the law is not applicable to the President.

Therefore, option 2 is the correct answer, stating that both statements are individually true, but statement II is not the correct explanation of statement I.