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.
No comments:
Post a Comment