The did not give an opportunity to be

The right of movement and residence go together, for when a person is asked to quit a particular place, both of his rights of movement and residence are affected. Therefore, in matters of restrictions imposed on the citizens regarding movement or residence at a particular place within the country, the same principles are followed, and most of the cases considered under Article 19 (1) (d) are also relevant to Article 19 (1) (e).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The freedom to reside and settle may be curtailed and suspended during an emergency. In Ibrahim Wazir v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 S.C. 299, the appellant an Indian citizen came to India without permit and was arrested and deported to Pakistan by the Government under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949.

It was held that the order of removal was invalid as coming of a citizen to his home country without a permit was not an offence which would justify his expulsion from the country.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 S.C. 1170, Section 3 (1) (b) of the M.P. Public Security Act, 1959 empowered the State Government to issue an order requiring a person to reside or remain in such a place as may be specified in the order to ask him to leave the place to go to another place selected by the authorities in the interests of security of the State or public order.

The Supreme Court held that the impugned Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act imposes unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (e) and, therefore, void. The Act did not give an opportunity to be heard to the concerned person about the place where he was asked to reside. Further, the section did not indicate the extent of the place, area or its distance from the residence of the person extern.