The question asks to identify the correct statements regarding amendments to the Indian Constitution.

Analyzing Constitutional Amendment Statements

Statement 1: New State Formation

Statement 1 claims that Parliament can amend the Constitution with a Simple Majority to form a new state. Forming a new state often requires altering the boundaries or names of existing states, which involves amending the First Schedule of the Constitution. Amendments to the First Schedule require a Special Majority as per Article 368 of the Constitution, not a Simple Majority. Therefore, Statement 1 is incorrect.

Statement 2: Directive Principles of State Policy

Statement 2 suggests that amending Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) requires a Special Majority. Amendments to Part IV (DPSP) generally fall under the main clause of Article 368(2), requiring a Special Majority. However, if an amendment to DPSP significantly affects the federal structure or other matters listed in the proviso of Article 368(2), it would also necessitate ratification by half of the state legislatures. Since the statement only mentions Special Majority and omits the potential requirement for state ratification, it is incomplete and considered incorrect in a strict examination context.

Statement 3: Amending Article 368

Statement 3 states that amending Article 368 requires a Special Majority plus consent from half the state legislatures. Article 368 itself is mentioned in the proviso to Article 368(2), meaning its amendment requires ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, in addition to the Special Majority. However, the term "consent" might be considered imprecise; the constitutional requirement is formal ratification by state legislatures. Furthermore, the exact scope of which amendments to Article 368 require state ratification could be debated. Given these potential ambiguities and the strictness required for constitutional questions, this statement might be deemed incorrect.

Conclusion on Statements

Based on the detailed analysis:

• Statement 1 is incorrect because forming new states involves amending the First Schedule, requiring a Special Majority.
• Statement 2 is incorrect because it's incomplete, potentially omitting the need for state ratification for certain DPSP amendments.
• Statement 3 is incorrect due to potential ambiguities in phrasing ("consent") and the specific requirements for amending Article 368 itself.

Since all three statements contain inaccuracies or omissions according to a strict interpretation, none of the statements are correct.