The Supreme Court has interpreted Right to food, Right to privacy and Right to…

Indian courts do not read every citizen's substantive rights only from the literal text of a listed Fundamental Right -- a single guarantee's scope can be judicially expanded through binding precedent to encompass new, unenumerated rights. The Supreme Court has developed exactly this doctrine for the right to life and personal liberty: since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it has read 'life' to mean the right to live with dignity, not mere animal existence, letting new substantive rights be read into that one guarantee over time.

That guarantee is Article 21 of the Constitution. Applying this doctrine, the Court has held that the right to food, the right to privacy, and the right to a pollution-free environment are all facets of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. The right to privacy was affirmed as intrinsic to Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017); the right to pollution-free water and air was read into Article 21 in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and later environmental rulings; and the right to food has likewise been recognised as flowing from the right to live with dignity. All three rights named in the question therefore trace back to the same constitutional guarantee.

• Article 19 protects six specific freedoms exercised by citizens -- speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession -- a set of named liberties, not the broader substantive right to life.

• Article 14 requires that the state treat similarly situated persons alike and not act arbitrarily in exercising its powers -- the constitutional basis for equality and non-arbitrariness doctrines, not the provision from which the right to food, privacy, or a pollution-free environment has been derived.

• Article 20 provides criminal-procedure safeguards -- protection from ex-post-facto laws, double jeopardy, and compelled self-incrimination -- unrelated to food, privacy, or environmental rights.

Because the Supreme Court has consistently anchored all three rights in Article 21, that is the correct provision.