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

Model Answer: 

Right to movement

The right to move freely and reside anywhere within India is a fundamental right guaranteed to Indian citizens under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. This right is essential for personal liberty, economic opportunities, and national integration. However, like most fundamental rights, it is subject to reasonable restrictions.

The freedom of movement and residence is crucial for several reasons:

1. It allows citizens to seek better economic prospects across the country.
2. It promotes cultural exchange and national unity.
3. It enables individuals to escape persecution or discrimination in their native regions.
4. It facilitates access to better education and healthcare facilities.

However, these rights are not absolute and can be restricted under certain circumstances:

1. Public Order and Security: Under Article 19(5), the state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order or security of the state. For instance, during civil unrest or in sensitive border areas, movement may be restricted.

2. Protection of Indigenous Populations: To safeguard the interests of indigenous tribes, entry into certain areas like Andaman and Nicobar Islands or parts of Northeast India is regulated.

3. Environmental Conservation: Movement and settlement in ecologically sensitive areas like wildlife sanctuaries can be restricted to protect the environment.

4. Public Health: During pandemics or disease outbreaks, as seen during the COVID-19 crisis, temporary restrictions on movement can be imposed.

5. Domicile-based Reservations: Some states have residency requirements for government jobs or educational institutions, which indirectly affect the right to reside.

6. Property Ownership: Non-domiciles face restrictions on purchasing agricultural land in some states, impacting the right to reside.

The judiciary has played a crucial role in balancing these rights with necessary restrictions. For example, in the Pandey vs. State of West Bengal case (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of laws requiring permits for entry into certain tribal areas.

In conclusion, while the right to move and reside freely within India is fundamental to citizens’ liberty and national cohesion, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The challenge lies in striking a balance between individual freedom and collective interests, ensuring that any limitations imposed are proportionate and serve a legitimate purpose.