Explanation:

both (a) & (b) are correct.

Case: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP

“There is a right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England. These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following requirements: 

• 1) an arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained. 
• 2) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. 
• 3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. 

It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have complied with the above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the right of the arrested persons found in the various police manuals.”

Therefore, the Constitution of India provides certain rights to an arrested person, as a prerequisite to the Fundamental Rights provided to every citizen of the country. Article 21 and 22 establish the righteousness an arrested person holds in order to protect himself from any illegal action against him in the process of arrest.

Hence option 3rd is correct.