The statement is true that the right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India is freely available to Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. While Indian citizens have the freedom to travel and reside anywhere within the country, there are certain limitations and exceptions to this right.

One of the limitations is regarding national security. The government has the authority to impose restrictions on movement and residence in certain areas for security reasons, such as border regions or areas affected by insurgency or terrorism. The purpose is to protect the citizens and maintain law and order.

Additionally, restrictions can be imposed during times of emergency or exceptional circumstances, such as periods of natural disasters, public health emergencies, or other situations where there is a need to control movement for the greater good. These restrictions are usually temporary and lifted once the situation improves.

Another aspect that limits the right of movement and residence is related to certain legal provisions and procedural requirements. For example, individuals may need permission or permits to enter or reside in certain areas, especially for sensitive locations like military bases, wildlife sanctuaries, or protected areas. Non-compliance with such requirements can result in legal consequences.

Furthermore, the right to movement and residence can also be curtailed for specific groups of individuals, such as those who are under trial, convicted of crimes, or deemed a threat to public safety. In such cases, restrictions on movement and residence may be imposed as a preventive measure or as part of a legal penalty.

In summary, while Indian citizens have the freedom of movement and residence within the country, these rights are subject to certain limitations. The government has the authority to impose restrictions for reasons of national security, emergency situations, legal provisions, or for specific categories of individuals. These limitations are in place to ensure the well-being of the citizens and to maintain public order.

You are absolutely right! While the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to movement and residence throughout the country for its citizens (Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(d) respectively), these rights are not absolute and are subject to certain reasonable restrictions. Here's a breakdown:

The Fundamental Right:

• Article 19(1)(d): Guarantees the right of every citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India.
• Article 19(1)(e): Guarantees the right of every citizen to reside and settle in any part of India.

Reasonable Restrictions:

These rights are not absolute and can be restricted based on grounds of public order, morality, health, and other concerns. These restrictions are enshrined in Article 19(5) of the Constitution, which allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on these rights.

Examples of Restrictions:

• Public Order: The government can restrict movement in areas experiencing unrest or potential security threats. For instance, during communal riots or terrorist activities, certain areas might be placed under curfew.
• Morality: Restrictions can be imposed on movement or residence to protect public morality, such as prohibiting the entry of certain individuals into specific areas.
• Health: The government can restrict movement to prevent the spread of diseases or epidemics, like quarantine measures during outbreaks.
• National Security: In situations of national security concern, the government can restrict movement and residence in sensitive border areas or areas with strategic importance.
• Economic Reasons: Restrictions can be placed on movement and residence in certain areas due to economic considerations, such as prohibiting the entry of individuals into specific economic zones.
• Other Laws: Other laws might also restrict movement and residence, such as laws relating to immigration, passport and visa regulations, and laws prohibiting entry into certain restricted areas.

Balancing Act:

The key is to find a balance between the fundamental right of movement and residence and the legitimate concerns of the state. Restrictions should be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the situation. Courts play a vital role in ensuring that any restrictions are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion:

While India guarantees the right to movement and residence, these rights are not absolute and can be restricted in specific circumstances. The constitution provides a framework to ensure that these restrictions are imposed in a fair and reasonable manner, with a balance between individual rights and public interest.

The statement is correct. Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution grant every citizen of India the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of India. These rights are fundamental and essential for the exercise of various other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to certain restrictions. The Constitution itself imposes reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interests of the general public, public order, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. These restrictions are mentioned in Article 19(2) to Article 19(5) of the Constitution.

For example, the right to movement and residence can be restricted in the following situations:

1. In the interest of the general public: The government can restrict the movement of people in certain areas to protect the general public from harm, such as in areas prone to natural disasters or affected by epidemics.
2. Public order: The right to movement and residence can be restricted to maintain public order, such as during times of communal tension or political unrest.
3. Morality: The government can restrict the movement and residence of people in certain areas to protect public morality, such as in areas known for illegal activities or prostitution.
4. Sovereignty and integrity of India: The government can restrict the movement and residence of people in certain areas to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, such as in areas near international borders or in sensitive military zones.

In addition, various laws and regulations, such as the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, also impose restrictions on the movement and residence of foreigners in India.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also held that the right to movement and residence is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as:

• In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court held that the right to movement and residence can be restricted in the interest of the general public, public order, and morality.
• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to movement and residence is not absolute and can be restricted by reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

In conclusion, while the right to movement and residence is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, it is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public, public order, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.