This article has been written by ms. Nainci rani, a student studying B. A. LL. B. (H.) from Teerthanker mahaveer college of law and legal studies, moradabad. The author is a 3rd year law student.
- Introduction :
Article 19 (1) (d) guarantee to all citizens of India the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India”. This right is however, subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in clause (5) of article 19 , i. e., (1) in the interest of general public or (2) for the protection of the interest of any schedule tribe. Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution guarantee to its citizens a right to go wherever they like in Indian territory Without any kind of restrictions whatsoever . They can move not merely from one state to another but also from one place to another within the same state.
- Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India :
The freedom cannot be curtailed by any law except within the limits prescribed under article 19 (5) . What the Constitution lays stress upon is that the entire territory is one unit so far the citizens are concerned . Thus the object was to make indian citizens national minded and not be petty and parochial.
- Grounds of restrictions :
The state may under clause (5) of article 19 impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on two grounds :-
- In the interests of general public
- For the protection of the interest of schedule tribes.
In N. B. Khare v. State of delhi , the petitioner was served with an order of Externment by the district magistrate, delhi, to remove himself immediately from delhi district and not to return there for a period of three months. The order was made under the east Punjab safety act, 1949 . The petitioner contended that the order imposed unreasonable restrictions on his right to move freely, because (a) the externment order depended on the subjective satisfaction of the executive, and (b) the act did not fix any maximum time beyond which the order could continue. The supreme court held that the mere fact that the power to make the order of Externment was given to the state government or district magistrate whose satisfaction was final did not make the restrictions unreasonable because the desirability of passing such an individual order in emergency had to be left to an officer. The second contention was rejected on the ground that the act was of limited duration, theref5, there was no possibility of an order of externment being made for definite period. But in state of M. P. V. Baldeo prasad, the court held – a law providing for externment of ‘dangerous character’from a particular locality cannot be called reasonable if it dose not specially define as to what is meant by dangerous character as it gives the administrative authority arbitrary power to determine as to whether a citizen is of dangerous character.
In state of uttar pradesh v. Kaushalya, the supreme court has held that the right of movement of prostitutes may be restricted on ground of public health and in the interest of public morals.
The right of a citizen to move freely may also be restricted for the protection of the interest of ‘scheduled tribes’. The object is to protect the original tribes which are mostly settled in assam. These tribes have their own culture, language, customs and manners. It was considered necessary to impose restrictions upon the entry of outsiders to these areas. It was feared that uncontrolled mixing of the tribes with the people of other areas might produce undesirable effect upon the tribal people.
- Right to movement and personal liberty :
There has been a long standing controversy regarding whether the deprivation or personal liberty by detention is convered under a denial of rights under article 21 only or 19 (1) (d) as well.
- A . K. Gopalan v. The state of madras (1950) :
In this case, this question repeatedly arose. It has been settled that a person can claim and rely on any fundamental right and it will eventually be the duty of the court to decide as to which fundamental rights is violated.
In this case, the supreme Court viewed articles 19 and 21 too narrowly, here, the petitioner was detained under the preventive detention act 1950 in jail and so filed a writ petition that this hampered his rights under article 19(1) (d) and 21. The court held that article 21 which protects personal liberty , implies personal liberty in the sense of the physical body ‘s liberty and not rights given under article 19. This case, thus, held that personal liberty in cases of detention has to be covered under article 21 and not 19 (1) (d) .
- Kharak singh v. The state of U. P. & others (1962) :
In this case , unreasonable surveillance and domiciliary visits by police not authorized by any law and thus held to be violative of the right to freedom of movement. The court observed that even psychology restraint of freedom of movement is violative of this article.
- Govind v. State of M. P. (1975) :
Again, in this case, the petitioner contended that regulations given under the police act of M. P. i. e, madhya pradesh police vidheyak, 2002,violated his Fundamental right to privacy which is a part of article 21 as well as article 19. The police officials paid many domiciliary visits and secret surveillance which hampered his privacy. It was contested that the petitioner led a life of a criminal. The supreme court held that this was a reasonable restrictions by police officials as the regulations of the act itself can only be enforced if there was determination via available material which showed a criminal background at the end of the person’s life. The regulations were held to be constitutional and not violative of article 21.
- Conclusion :
To conclude, the right to freedom of movement is a fundamental right provided to us by our Constitution. It is recognized as a basic human right globally. In today’s times of pandemic, the restrictions are necessary for the general public interest, but the impact of such restrictions is very disproportionate. Although the government puts restrictions that are proportional in the eyes of the general public, when we see the ground level difference that exists in society it is required on the part of the state to ensure reasonable standards of proportionality.
- Reference:
- Dr. J. N. Pandey
- Fundamental rights and their enforcement
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-freedom-movement-individuals-under-constitution-india-insight-current-scenario/?amp=1
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/fundamental-rights-to-reside-and-to-move-about-freely
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening