Q.Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.
Model Answer
View this Question In PYQ RealmIntroduction
The Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence, guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution, enables citizens to travel and settle freely across the country. These rights are fundamental to promoting national integration and individual liberty. However, they are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) to protect public interest and indigenous communities.
Body Analysis
Scope and Significance of the Rights
- Article 19(1)(d): Guarantees the freedom to move throughout the territory of India.
- Article 19(1)(e): Grants the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.
- Together, these rights foster economic freedom, eliminate state-based discrimination, and strengthen national unity.
Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(5)
The State can impose legally valid restrictions on these rights based on the following grounds:
- Interests of the General Public:
- Public Health: Restricting movement to control epidemics (e.g., lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic).
- Environmental Protection: Restricting entry into ecologically sensitive zones to prevent degradation.
- Protection of Scheduled Tribes:
- Restricting outsiders from entering or settling in tribal areas (e.g., Scheduled Areas in the Northeast) to safeguard indigenous culture, land, and resources.
- National Security and Law & Order:
- Imposing movement restrictions in disturbed areas under special laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) or near international borders.
Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalya (1964): The Supreme Court ruled that restricting movement to maintain public order and morality is reasonable and constitutionally valid.
- Damdami Taksal v. State of Punjab (2022): The court upheld temporary restrictions on movement to prevent communal tensions and maintain public peace.
- Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra (2008): The judiciary emphasized that while preventive detention can restrict movement, it must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards.
Special Regional Provisions
- North-Eastern States: The Inner Line Permit (ILP) system under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, regulates the entry of non-locals into specific states to protect tribal populations.
- Jammu & Kashmir: Prior to the abrogation of Article 370, special provisions restricted non-residents from acquiring permanent settlement rights.
Conclusion
While the rights to movement and residence are vital for personal liberty, they must be balanced against public welfare, national security, and minority rights. The judiciary's role in ensuring that any restrictions are proportionate and reasonable remains essential for maintaining this delicate balance.