Answer:
| Approach:
Introduction
- Begin with a brief overview of the rights to freedom of movement and residence under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution, and mention that these rights are not absolute.
Body
- Divide the main content into sub-sections discussing:
- The provisions of Article 19(1)(d) and (e) and the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interests of the general public, national security, and the protection of Scheduled Tribes.
- Notable judgments from the Supreme Court of India that uphold the constitutionality of these restrictions.
Conclusion
- Write a relevant conclusion.
|
Introduction:
Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution guarantee the fundamental rights of freedom of movement and residence to all Indian citizens. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to certain reasonable restrictions for the protection of public interest and national security.
Body:
The rights to freedom of movement and residence in India are outlined as follows:
- Freedom of movement (Article 19(1)(d)): This provision guarantees the right of every Indian citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5), which allows the state to impose limitations in the interests of the general public or for the protection of Scheduled Tribes.
- Freedom of residence (Article 19(1)(e)): This provision guarantees the right of every Indian citizen to reside and settle in any part of India. Like the freedom of movement, this right is also subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interests of the general public or for the protection of Scheduled Tribes.
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of these restrictions in various cases. Some notable judgments are:
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Court upheld the validity of a state law that restricted the entry and residence of non-residents in certain border areas for national security reasons.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): The Court held that the right to move freely is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be imposed for maintaining public order and ensuring national security.
- Sundararajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013): The Court upheld restrictions on the right to reside near the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, citing the potential threat to public safety and national security.
Conclusion:
These cases demonstrate that the rights to freedom of movement and residence, while fundamental to Indian citizens, are not absolute and can be restricted by the state in the interests of public order, national security, and the protection of vulnerable communities.
GS Foundation
Crash Course
Combo
Optional Courses
Degree Program
