What is/are the major difference/ differences between a written and an unwritten constitution? 1. A written constitution is the formal source of all constitutional laws in the country and the unwritten constitution is not the formal source. 2. A written constitution is entirely codified whereas an unwritten constitution is not. Select the correct answer using the code given below ; Code :

The correct answer is Option 1. Statement 1 is correct because in a written constitution (like the USA or India), the document serves as the formal, supreme source of all laws. All legal provisions must derive their validity from this single text. Conversely, in an unwritten constitution (like the UK), there is no single formal source; instead, constitutional law is derived from multiple sources including statutes, judicial precedents, and conventions.

Statement 2 is incorrect because it uses the absolute term "entirely codified." No written constitution is entirely codified, as they all rely on unwritten conventions and judicial interpretations to function. Similarly, an unwritten constitution is not completely uncodified; it contains many written, codified acts (e.g., the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1689). The difference lies in the degree of codification and the legal supremacy of a single document, making Statement 1 the only accurate distinction.