August 01, 2017

The State may impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of movement on two grounds:

1.     In the interest of general public,
2.    For the protection of the interest of scheduled Tribes.

In State of M.P. v. Baldeo Prasad, the Court held – A law providing for experiment of ‘dangerous character’ from a particular locality cannot be called reasonable if it does not specially define as to what is meant by dangerous character as it gives the administrative authority arbitrary power to determine as to whether a citizen is of dangerous character.

The right of a citizen to move freely may also be restricted for the protection of the interest of “Scheduled Tribes”. As the tribes have their own culture, language, customs and manners, it is necessary to impose restriction upon the entry of outsiders to these areas.

In Rajneeh Kumar v. Union of India, it has been held that the requirement of wearing helmet is not a restriction on freedom of movement of citizen. The paramount objective of wearing helmet is to save his life.


Post a Comment

Journal Archive

Related Queries

Your Email is safe with Us

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Popular Posts