Option 1 states that in India, the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is available only in case of fundamental rights, not in the case of rights which follow from some other provision in the Constitution. This statement is correct.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides for the Right to Constitutional Remedies. It allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, this right is specifically for the protection of fundamental rights and not for any other rights granted by the Constitution.

Option 2 states that both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue various writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This statement is not correct. While the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Courts have the power to issue these writs for the enforcement of both fundamental rights and other legal rights.

In summary, option 1 is correct as the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is available only in case of fundamental rights. Option 2 is incorrect, as both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but the High Courts can also issue them for other legal rights.