Which of the following has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India as a Fundamental Right, even though it is not expressly listed as such in the text of the Constitution?

Introduction / Context:
The Constitution of India contains a detailed list of Fundamental Rights in Part III. However, over time the Supreme Court has interpreted these rights broadly and has recognised some additional rights as being implicit within the existing provisions. One of the most important among these is the right to privacy, which was not expressly written in the original text but has been declared a Fundamental Right through judicial interpretation. This question checks whether you can distinguish between rights that are explicitly listed and those that have been read into the Constitution by the judiciary.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The focus is on rights that qualify as Fundamental Rights.
• Only one option should represent a right that is not expressly written as such in the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court has power to interpret the scope of existing rights under Part III.

Concept / Approach:
Fundamental Rights such as abolition of untouchability and freedom of association are clearly mentioned in the text of the Constitution. The remedy of certiorari is a writ under Articles 32 and 226 and not itself a separate Fundamental Right. The right to privacy was historically not specifically named in Part III, but the Supreme Court held that it is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and also flows from other freedoms. Therefore we must identify the option that is judicially recognised as a Fundamental Right but not expressly enumerated as one in the original wording.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that Article 17 explicitly abolishes untouchability as a Fundamental Right.Step 2: Remember that Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations or unions.Step 3: Note that writs like certiorari are constitutional remedies, not stand alone rights, and are provided under Article 32 and Article 226.Step 4: Recall the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which held that the right to privacy is implicit in Article 21 and other provisions, even though it is not expressly named.Step 5: Conclude that right to privacy fits the description given in the question.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, mentally list Fundamental Rights by Article number. You will not find a separate Article titled right to privacy. At the same time, important Supreme Court decisions repeatedly affirm that privacy is protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty. This dual fact that it is protected but not textually listed confirms that right to privacy is the required option. The other listed rights are either expressly written or are procedural mechanisms rather than newly recognised rights.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Abolition of untouchability is explicitly mentioned in Article 17 and is therefore not merely a judicially articulated right. The right to form associations or unions is clearly listed in Article 19(1)(c). Certiorari is a writ issued by a higher court to review lower court proceedings and is not itself a separate Fundamental Right. The right against exploitation is part of Articles 23 and 24 and is also explicitly written. None of these match the condition of being only judicially read into the Constitution.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes confuse writs with rights and may mistakenly treat certiorari as a right. Others may think abolition of untouchability is only a directive principle and overlook that it is expressly a Fundamental Right. The safest method is to remember that the right to privacy became prominent through Supreme Court judgments and is discussed as being derived from Article 21, making it a classic example of a judicially recognised Fundamental Right.

Final Answer:
Right to privacy