“Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute.” Comment.

Understanding the Rights

Article 19(1)(d) – Freedom of Movement: This article guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This includes the right to travel, to choose one’s place of work, and to engage in trade or profession anywhere in the country. It’s not merely the right to physical movement but also encompasses the freedom to transit through a state without being subjected to unreasonable restrictions.

Article 19(1)(e) – Right to Reside and Settle: This article grants citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of India. This means a citizen can choose to live permanently in any state or union territory, irrespective of their place of birth or origin. This right is vital for fostering national integration and preventing regional disparities.

Reasonable Restrictions on the Rights

The Constitution, through clauses (5) and (6) of Article 19, empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on these rights. These restrictions must be based on any of the five grounds mentioned in the article:

• Security of the State: Restrictions can be imposed if movement or residence poses a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Public Order: Restrictions can be placed to maintain peace and tranquility in society.
• Morality: Restrictions can be imposed if movement or residence is considered immoral or against public decency.
• Public Health: Restrictions can be imposed to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. (e.g., quarantine during pandemics)
• Other legitimate state interests: This is a broad category allowing restrictions for purposes like town planning or preventing overcrowding.

Examples of Restrictions

• Protected Areas: The government can restrict access to certain areas, like tribal areas or border regions, in the interest of security or to protect the local population.
• Domicile Requirements: While the right to reside is fundamental, some states have policies (often challenged in court) that give preference to domicile holders in employment or education.
• Curfews and Restrictions on Movement: During times of unrest or emergencies, the government can impose curfews and restrict movement to maintain law and order.
• Foreigners’ Restrictions: These rights are not available to foreigners; their movement and residence are regulated by separate laws like the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court has consistently held that restrictions imposed on these rights must be ‘reasonable’. This means they must be:

• Based on law: The restriction must be prescribed by a validly enacted law.
• Pursue a legitimate aim: The restriction must be aimed at achieving one of the grounds mentioned in Article 19(6).
• Proportionate: The restriction must not be excessive or disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 19 by holding that the right to travel abroad is also included within the right to move freely. The court also emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in imposing restrictions.

Table: Comparison of Restrictions

Ground for Restriction	Examples	Relevant Case Law (Knowledge Cutoff 2023)
Security of the State	Restricting movement in border areas, monitoring foreign nationals	Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
Public Order	Imposing curfews during riots, regulating processions	Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966)
Morality	Restricting residence in areas known for immoral activities	State of Bombay v. R.M. Dhulappa (1955)