Answer:-
- Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution guarantee the Fundamental Rights of freedom of movement and residence to all Indian citizens. These rights enable citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India and reside in any part of the country. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interests of the general public, national security, and protection of Scheduled Tribes.
Right to Movement: Reasonable Restrictions
Public Order and Health:
- The State may restrict movement to prevent disorder, crime, or health hazards, particularly during emergencies.
- Eg: COVID-19 lockdowns and curfews were imposed to control the spread of the virus and protect public health.
National Security Considerations:
- Restrictions on movement in border and conflict-prone areas help prevent insurgency and terrorism.
-Eg: AFSPA-related restrictions limit civilian access in sensitive regions for security purposes. - In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that the right to move freely is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted for maintaining public order and national security. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Court upheld restrictions on entry and residence in certain border areas for security reasons.
Environmental and Ecological Protection:
- Movement may be restricted in ecologically sensitive zones to protect biodiversity and indigenous communities.
- Eg: Tribal areas in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, including Sentinelese zones, are restricted to preserve ecosystems and tribal identity.
Right to Residence: Reasonable Restrictions
Protection of Scheduled Tribes:
- Special provisions under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules restrict non-tribals from settling in certain areas to preserve tribal culture and land rights.
- Eg: The Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram regulates outsider settlement.
Property Laws and Planned Development:
- Some states restrict land ownership by outsiders to safeguard local interests and ensure balanced development.
- Eg: In Himachal Pradesh and Nagaland, non-residents require government approval to purchase land.
Public Safety and Welfare:
- Restrictions may also be imposed to ensure safe living conditions and protect public welfare.
- Eg: In Sundararajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on residence near the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant due to concerns of public safety and national security.
Thus, while freedom of movement and residence promotes national integration and individual liberty, constitutional restrictions ensure public welfare, security, environmental protection, and preservation of vulnerable communities.