Introduction
Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India. However, this right is not absolute; Article 19(5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on two specific grounds: in the interest of the general public and for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
Constitutional and Statutory Grounds of Limitation
The constitutional limitations under Article 19(5) are operationalised through various legislative and executive measures:
- Protection of Scheduled Tribes: The Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime, established under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, restricts entry of non-residents into designated tribal areas (such as Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram) to preserve indigenous cultures, customs, and demographic integrity.
- Public Order and Safety: Statutory mechanisms such as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (replacing Section 144 of the CrPC) empower executive magistrates to temporarily restrain individual or group movement to prevent riots, violence, or imminent public hazards.
- Public Health and Morality: Freedom of movement can be curtailed to contain epidemics or pandemics, as seen under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Additionally, movement can be regulated for public morality and health, as upheld in State of UP v. Kaushailiya regarding commercial sex work.
Judicial Safeguards Against Arbitrary Restrictions
The judiciary has instituted stringent checks to prevent excessive state overreach:
- Protection Against Arbitrary Surveillance: In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963), the Supreme Court held that intrusive domiciliary visits and unauthorized surveillance infringe upon an individual's personal liberty and right to move freely without unwarranted hindrance.
- The Proportionality Test: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court mandated that any state restraint on fundamental freedoms must satisfy the proportionality doctrine—requiring a legitimate state aim, statutory backing, suitability, necessity (least restrictive measure), and balance between rights and public interest.
Conclusion
Constitutional limitations under Article 19(5) are vital for safeguarding vulnerable communities and maintaining national order, yet they cannot become routine instruments of administrative convenience. To uphold constitutional democracy, any curb on free movement must strictly adhere to procedural due process and pass the judicial test of proportionality.