Q.2. “Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute.” Comment. [UPSC 2022 GS P-2]

The right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India is enshrined under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing that all citizens have the freedom to move freely throughout the country and to reside and settle in any part of it. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of the public.

Understanding Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e)

• Article 19(1)(d) guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
• Article 19(1)(e) provides the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.

These rights are essential to the concept of individual liberty and are integral to ensuring the free movement of people within the country. However, like all rights under Article 19, these are subject to reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(5), which states that the State can impose restrictions in the interests of:

1. The security of the state.
2. Public order.
3. Public health.
4. The protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.

Reasonable Restrictions on the Right of Movement and Residence

1. Security of the State In situations where national security is at risk, the State can impose restrictions on the free movement or residence of citizens. For example, during times of armed conflict, emergency, or situations of insurgency in specific regions, the movement of citizens may be restricted.
   • Example: Restrictions on movement during periods of insurgency in states like Jammu & Kashmir or Manipur.
2. Public Order The government may limit the freedom of movement to maintain law and order. This typically occurs in regions experiencing civil unrest, strikes, or violence. Curfews, movement restrictions during riots, or during preventive measures like Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be enforced to maintain public order.
   • Example: During communal riots or civil unrest, the government can impose curfews to restrict movement and prevent violence.
3. Public Health Restrictions on movement can be enforced to prevent the spread of diseases or epidemics. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, various states imposed lockdowns and travel restrictions to protect public health, preventing people from moving freely.
   • Example: The nationwide lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted movement to control the spread of the virus.
4. Protection of Scheduled Tribes and Indigenous Communities Certain areas in India, especially tribal regions, have special provisions to protect the rights of indigenous people. The Constitution, under Article 19(5), permits the government to impose restrictions on the entry of non-tribals into areas inhabited by Scheduled Tribes to protect their cultural heritage, prevent exploitation, and safeguard their way of life.
   • Example: States like Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh have the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system, which requires non-residents to obtain special permission before entering these areas.

Landmark Case Laws

1. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952) This case dealt with land reform legislation that imposed restrictions on the movement of people in certain areas. The Court held that while the right to movement is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) This case discussed the scope of the right to movement. The Supreme Court ruled that police surveillance on an individual violated his right to free movement, thus reaffirming that unnecessary state interference infringes upon this right. However, it also recognized that reasonable restrictions can be imposed.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and linked it with Article 19, ruling that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable when restricting any form of personal liberty, including the right to movement.
4. Satyabrata Ghose v. Union of India (1954) This case highlighted that reasonable restrictions on the right to movement could be imposed in emergencies or in the public interest, such as during national security concerns or emergencies.

Conclusion

The right of movement and residence throughout India is fundamental to the personal liberty of Indian citizens, reflecting the democratic values of freedom. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in certain circumstances such as national security, public order, public health, and the protection of vulnerable communities like Scheduled Tribes. The balance between individual freedoms and societal interests is crucial to ensuring that these rights are exercised in harmony with the larger public good.