Subject: Indian Polity

The right to move and reside freely within India's territory, enshrined under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, represents a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. However, these rights operate within reasonable restrictions as demonstrated by various judicial interpretations and constitutional provisions.

Constitutional Framework and Restrictions

• These rights are subject to restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interest of general public or protection of interests of Scheduled Tribes.
• The state can impose reasonable restrictions through laws for:
  • Maintaining public order and security.
  • Protecting indigenous populations in scheduled areas.
  • Safeguarding public health during emergencies.

Judicial Interpretations

• In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalya (1964), the Supreme Court upheld that restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate to the objective sought.
• The Alkhajan Case (1981) established that externment orders must be based on concrete evidence rather than arbitrary grounds.
• Recent judicial pronouncements emphasize the need for exceptional circumstances to justify any restriction on movement.

Contemporary Challenges and Implementation

• India's internal migration statistics show 450 million internal migrants (2011), marking a 45% increase from 2001.
• Migration patterns reveal:
  • 62% within-district movement.
  • 26% inter-district movement.
  • 12% inter-state migration.
• Challenges in implementation include:
  • Regional permit systems in certain areas.
  • Special provisions for protected areas and conflict zones.
  • Restrictions during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safeguards and Oversight

• Administrative measures require:
  • Judicial review of restriction orders.
  • Time-bound implementation of restrictions.
  • Clear specification of affected areas and duration.
• Parliamentary oversight through periodic reviews of restrictive legislation.

The constitutional framework strikes a delicate balance between individual liberty and public interest, as evidenced by the Inner Line Permit system in northeastern states and restrictions in Union Territory of Ladakh. The key lies in ensuring that restrictions remain reasonable, proportionate, and serve legitimate public interests while preserving the essence of these fundamental rights.