Q.Best description of Fundamental Rights: all rights an individual should have / all rights given by law / rights given+protected by Constitution / rights that cannot ever be restricted.

The right option needs to capture both that Fundamental Rights are a specific, limited list AND

that they carry the force of law behind them, not just moral force.

"All the rights that an individual should have" is too broad and too vague -- it describes an ideal,

not the specific, enumerated list of six categories (Equality, Freedom, against Exploitation, Freedom

of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, and Constitutional Remedies) that Part III of the

Indian Constitution actually contains. "All the rights given by the laws of the country" is also too

broad, since it would include ordinary legal rights created by Parliament through regular

legislation -- these can be changed by a simple majority in Parliament and lack the special

constitutional protection Fundamental Rights enjoy. "Rights that are important as decided by the

Supreme Court" misplaces where these rights come from -- they are laid down in the Constitution

itself; courts interpret and enforce them, but do not invent the list.

What makes a right "fundamental" specifically is that it is named in Part III of the Constitution,

given the special legal status of being directly enforceable through Article 32 and Article 226, and

protected against ordinary legislative change (subject only to constitutional amendment, itself

bound by the basic-structure doctrine).