Freedom of Movement – Constitutional Provisions

• Article 19(1)(d) of Part III of the Indian Constitution, addresses the basic right to free movement. It grants Indian nationals the freedom to roam freely across India’s territory. This right coincides with Article 19(1)(e), which mentions the freedom to reside in any region of the country. The phrase “freely” means “without any ultimate constraint.” This right, however, is subject to reasonable limitations imposed by law, as stated in Article 19(5).
• Article 19(5) stipulates that states may place limits on people’s freedom of movement in the interest of the general public or to preserve the rights of scheduled tribes.

The Right to Reside and Settle in any part of India’s Territories

Every Indian citizen has the right “to stay and settle in any part of the territory of India,” according to Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. The clause’s goal is to break down internal barriers in India or any of its sections. This right is likewise subject to the reasonable limitations set forth in Article 19, clause (5). The right to reside and the freedom to freely migrate about the country are complementary and frequently go hand in hand.

Freedom of Movement – Restrictions

• Restrictions on the freedom of Movement can only be imposed on two grounds, both of which are listed in Article 19(5) of the constitution, namely the general public’s interests and the protection of scheduled tribes’ interests.
• Among the current laws, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 is an example of a limitation on free movement enacted in the public’s interest.
• People in banned regions are denied entrance under this Act. This is justifiable since it is in the best interests and security of the people.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of movement of prostitutes can be regulated in the interest of public health and morality.
• Another reason for the limitations is to preserve the rights of the scheduled tribes. Scheduled Tribes are aboriginal tribes with different cultures, customs, and languages that are spread across the country but primarily concentrated in the North East.
• It is seen as necessary to safeguard their interests by excluding others from living in certain places, resulting in fewer conflicts of interest and fewer negative consequences for these tribal people.

Significance of Freedom of Movement

• Every citizen of India has the right under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution to move freely across India’s territory and to reside and settle in any part of it.
• This right is subject to reasonable limitations set by law in the public interest or for the protection of any Scheduled Tribes’ interests.
• Foreigners do not have the same freedom of movement and residence as Indian residents.
• Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution does not grant a foreigner the right to reside and settle in the country. The Indian government has the authority to deport foreigners from the country.
• The free movement of citizens leads to higher employment and lower unemployment rates, as well as to higher productivity and income, and has a positive impact on taxes and social contributions.
• The right to reside and the freedom to freely migrate about the country are complementary and frequently go hand in hand.

Important Judgements

Freedom of Movement – Important Judgements

There has long been dispute over whether the deprivation of personal liberty through detention constitutes a violation of rights under Article 21 alone or under Article 19(1)(d) as well.

A.K.Gopalan v. the State of Madras (1950)

In this case, this question repeatedly arose. This question surfaced constantly in this case. It has been established that a person may claim and depend on any fundamental right, and it is ultimately the responsibility of the court to determine which basic right has been infringed. The Supreme Court interpreted Articles 19 and 21 too narrowly in this instance. The Court determined that Article 21, which guarantees personal liberty, means personal liberty in the sense of physical bodily liberty, rather than the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Thus, this judgement found that personal liberty under custody must be protected by Article 21 rather than 19(1)(d).

Kharak Singh v. The State Of UP. & Others (1962)

In this case, excessive police monitoring and home visits were not permitted by law and were consequently deemed a violation of the right to freedom of movement. According to the Court, even the psychological constraint of freedom of movement is a violation of this Article.