MUKESH PATEL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ARTICLE 19(1) (b),(c),(d),(e)
Tanmay Bhagat MBA (Tech) TELECOM Roll No : 405 Trimester VII Third Year
25th August 24, 2012

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

CONTENTS

1. ARTICLE 19(1)2 2. FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE: ART 19 (1) (b).2 3. FREEDOM TO FORM ASSOCIATION: ART 19 (1) (c)...3 4. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE: ART 19 (1) (d) & ART 19 (1) (e).........4

5. CASE: KHARAK SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS...6 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY...10

ARTICLE 19
2

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc (1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE: ART 19(1) (B)

Art 19(1) (b) guarantees to the citizens of India the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Under art.19(1)(3), however, the state can make any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interest of public order, and sovereignty and integrity of India. To some extent, there is common ground between art 19(1) (a) and art19 (1) (b). For example demonstrations, processions and meetings considered under art 19(1) (a) also fall under art 19(1) (b) for a demonstration also amounts to an assembly and, therefore, the same principles apply under both articles. The right to strike is not available under either of these articles. Restrictions on freedom of assembly 1) Assembly should not be violent but peaceful. 2) It should be without arms 3) The public order has to be maintained.

FREEDOM TO FORM ASSOCIATION: ART 19(1) (C)

An association means a collection of persons who have joined together for a certain object, which may be for the benefit of the members or the improvement, welfare or advantage of the members or the improvement, welfare or advantage of the public or some scientific, charitable or similar purpose. Article 19(1)(c) includes the right to form companies, societies, partnership firms, trade unions, clubs, political parties and the like body of persons. This freedom implies that several individuals can get together and form voluntary admit in the association with common aims, legitimate purpose and a community of interests. The person who form the association have the associational right to continue with the member with those other whom they voluntarily admit an association. Any state action directed to highjack association by taking it over, introducing officials in the management body of association, trading out the member or restricting the committees and bodies constitution in accordance with the constitution of the association. Association of which citizens may be members may be social, academic creational, religious, cultural, or professional, vocational or political. These may include associations for of cultural activities. Recognising the importance of the right of forming associations in a democratic society, the courts have not favoured the vesting of absolute discretion in the executive to interfere with this fundamental right. A discretion vested in a government official to prohibit formation of an association, without proper safeguards, has been held to be unconstitutional. From time to time the Supreme Court has always been trying to clarify the extent of right to form association

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE: ART 19(1) (D), 19(1) (E)

IMPORTANCE Inhered in his status of citizenship, the citizens right to move freely throughout the territory of India is an important aspect of his freedom. The freedom of locomotion guarantees him in general right of free movement which is an aspect of his personal liberty, although a specific and limited part of it. It secures to hi, the right and privilege to go to any place within the country across all states and interstate barriers. A citizen needs no passport and no visa while travelling inside the country. Art 19(1) (d) guarantees to every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Art 19(1)(e) guarantees to a citizen the right to reside and settle in any part of India.19(5), however the state may impose restrictions on these rights by law in the interests of general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

ARTICLE 19(1) (D) AND 19(1) (E) ARE COMPLEMENTARY Broadly speaking the two rights contained in articles 19(1) (d) and 19(1) (e) are parts of the same right and are complementary and often go together. Most of the cases considered under article 19(d) are relevant to article 19(e) also. The two rights are therefore discussed together.

FOREIGNERS Art 19(1) (d) applies only to the citizens and not to foreigners. Accordingly the fundamental right of a foreigner is confined to art 21 guaranteeing his life and liberty. He cannot claim the right to reside and settle in the country as guaranteed by art 19(1) (e). The government of India thus has the power to expel foreigners from India.

EXTERNMENT
5

Art 19(1) (d) and art 19(1) (e) have been invoked frequently to challenge the validity of an externment order served by the executive on a citizen requiring him to leave a state or a district. Such an order prima facie curtails the freedoms guaranteed by these articles, and therefore the courts are entitled to test whether the order and the law under which it has been made is reasonable within article 19(5). The reasonableness of restrictions can be judicially determined in any given case in accordance with the regulation of the citizens freedom and the procedural requirements of the official conduct in the matter. Where a person was directed to remove himself from the Greater Bombay area, and settle at a place specified in the externment order, because the activities of that person in the greater Bombay were causing alarm and it was reasonably believed that he was about to be engaged in commission of certain offences, the externment order was held to be reasonable both in the sense of expulsion from the Greater Bombay, and fixation of a place of residence

KHARAK SINGH vs. THE STATE OF U. P. & OTHERS

6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided On: 18.12.1962 Appellants: Kharak Singh Vs. Respondent: The State of U.P. and Ors.

CHAIRMAN OF THE BENCH: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala

BENCH: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala Sinha, Bhuvaneshvar P.(CJ) Imam, Syed Jaffer Subbarao, K. Shah, J.C. Mudholkar, J.R.

FACTS:
7

The petitioner was challenged in a dacoity case but was released is there was no evidence against him. The police opened a history sheet against him. He was put under sur- veillance -is defined in Regulation 236 of the U. P. Police Regulations. Surveillance involves secret picketing of the house or approaches to the houses of the suspects, domiciliary visits at night, periodical enquiries by officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector into repute, habits, association, income, expenses and occupation, the reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absences from home, the verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry slips and the collection and record on a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 32 in which he challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter XX of U. P. Police Regulations, in which Regulation 236 also occurs.

HELD: Art. 19 (1) (d) the "freedom" here guaranteed is a right "to move freely" throughout the territory of India. Omitting as immaterial for the present purpose the last words defining the geographical area of the guaranteed movement, we agree that the right to "'move" denotes nothing more than a right of locomotion, and that in the context the adverb "'freely" would only connote that the freedom to move is without restriction and is absolute, i. e., to move wherever one likes, whenever one likes and however one likes subject to any valid law enacted or made under cl. 5. It is manifest that by the knock at the door, or by the man being roused from his sleep, his locomotion is not impeded or prejudiced in any manner. Learned Counsel suggested that the knowledge or apprehension that the police were on the watch for the movements of the suspect, might induce a psychological inhibition against his movements but, as already pointed out, we are unable to accept the argument that for this reason there is an impairment of the "'free" movement guaranteed by sub-cl. (d). The freedom guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (d) has reference to something tangible and physical rather and not to the imponderable.

The right to move about being excluded its narrowest interpretation would be that it comprehends nothing more than freedom from physical restraint or freedom from confinement within the bounds of

a prison; in other words, freedom from arrest and detention, from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement or locomotion.

The right of personal liberty in Art. 21 implies a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution. As regards the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (d), mere movement unobstructed by physical restritions cannot in itself be the object of a person's travel. A person travels ordinarily in quest of some objective. He goes to a place to enjoy, to do business, to meet friends, to have secret and intimate consultations with other and to do many other such things. If a man is shadowed, his movements are obviously constricted. He can move physically but it can only be a movement of an automation. A movement under the scrutinising gaze of a policeman cannot be described as a free movement. The whole country is his jail. The freedom of movement in Art. 19(1)(d) must, therefore, be a movement in a free country, i.e.. in a country where lie can do whatever lie likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner under the shadow of surveillance is certainly deprived of this freedom. He can move physically, but be cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and the shroud of surveillance cast upon him perforce engenders inhibitions in him, and he cannot act freely as he would like to do. Hence, the entire Regulation 236 offends Art. 19(1) (d) of the Constitution. Held, also that petitioner's freedom under Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution was also infringed. It was impossible for a person in the position of the petitioner to express his real and intimate thoughts to the visitor as fully as he would like to do.

JUDGEMENT: By Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala

POLICE SURVIEILLANCE:

The court ruled that no aspect of police surveillance fell within the scope of art 19(1) (d). Against the validity of shadowing of the suspects movement, it was argued that if a person suspected that his movements were being watched by the police, it would induce him a psychological inhibition against movement and this would infringe art 19(1) (d).

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Protection Of Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, by Arashdeep Kaur. 2. Introduction to Constitution of India, by Durga Das Basu, Wadhwa publishers, Nagpur. 3. Indian constitutional law, 5th edition, Wadhwa publishers, Nagpur.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. www.indiankanoon.org 2. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in 3. www.legalhelpindia.com 4. www.scribd.com

11