Kharak Singh V. State of UP: In this case, Supreme Court Held that the right to move freely throughout the territory of India means the right of locomotion which connotes the right to move wherever one likes, and however one likes.
Context
The Supreme Court said that a person’s fundamental right to reside and to move about freely anywhere in India cannot be refused on “flimsy grounds”.
The Case
- The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V Balasubramanian was hearing an externment order, issued by a deputy commissioner of police in Maharashtra against journalist Rahmat Khan.
- The order prohibited Khan from entering Maharashtra’s Amravati city for a year.
Indian Constitution on ‘Right to move’
- The Constitution of India guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to move freely through the territory of India.
- ·The principles of free migration are enshrined in clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution.
Applicability
- The Freedom of Movement and Residence apply only to citizens of India and not the Foreigners.
- A foreigner cannot claim the right to reside and settle in the country as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(e).
- The Government of India has the Power to expel foreigners from India.
Reasonable restriction
- This Right is, however subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(5).
- Clause (5) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
Important cases
- Kharak Singh V. State of UP: In this case, Supreme Court Held that the right to move freely throughout the territory of India means the right of locomotion which connotes the right to move wherever one likes, and however one likes.
- State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kaushalya: In this Case Supreme court held that the right of movement of prostitutes may be restricted on ground of Public Health and in the interest of Public Morals.
|
