In case of conflict between fundamental rights of citizens and privileges of Parliament

in the event of a dispute between the current privileges of the Parliament and the fundamental rights of the person, the former shall prevail.
Thus, if there is a dispute between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights, it should be kept in mind that, though at the same time giving weight to parliamentary privileges, due legal process, which is fair and equitable, should not be breached in the due process by limiting any fundamental right.
Therefore, the correct answer is D

Although it may be true for other fundamental rights including article 19, for article 21 it's bit different.
Keshav Singh Case: The Supreme Court held that violations of Article 21 due to the exercise of powers under Article 194(3) (which relates to parliamentary privileges) can be examined by the Court.Read on
Uncodified Privileges and Article 21
Since the privileges of Parliament are not codified, they're subject to interpretation and legal scrutiny.That means, where the procedure for denial of Art.21 is not clear,courts have room for interpretation.

In cases where there is a potential conflict between uncodified privileges and Article 21, the latter prevails, ensuring that any deprivation of life or personal liberty undergoes a fair and just procedure.

So, while MPs have certain privileges that even supersede ordinary citizens' right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), these privileges are not absolute.
They can be examined under the lens of Article 21, which mandates a fair procedure for any action that deprives an individual of life or personal liberty.
This harmonizes the functioning of democratic institutions with the fundamental rights of individuals.
Legal Basis: Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution.

Why Provided: To ensure MPs can perform legislative duties without undue external pressure.

What They Include: Freedom of speech within the house, protection from arrest in civil cases, etc.