Freedom of movement and administrative permits
Freedom of Movement and Administrative Permits
I. Overview
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right recognized in many constitutions and international human rights instruments.
It typically includes the right to move freely within a country, to choose residence, and to leave and return to one’s country.
In many legal systems, this right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Administrative Permits
Administrative permits are official permissions required for certain movements or activities, often for reasons of public order, security, health, or environmental protection.
Examples: permits for residence in certain areas, travel permits, work permits, or movement restrictions in sensitive zones.
Such permits regulate freedom of movement but must comply with constitutional safeguards.
II. Legal Framework and Principles
Fundamental Right: Many constitutions (e.g., Article 19(1)(d) of Indian Constitution) guarantee freedom of movement.
Reasonable Restrictions: Allowed under law for reasons such as public safety, security, health, or morality.
Due Process: Any restriction must be prescribed by law, follow due process, and not be arbitrary.
Proportionality: Restrictions must be proportionate to the objective sought.
Non-Discrimination: Restrictions cannot be discriminatory or based on irrelevant considerations.
III. Detailed Case Law (Indian and comparative examples)
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the restriction on freedom of movement (international travel) violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of personal liberty and held that any restriction on freedom of movement must comply with procedure established by law and fairness (natural justice).
Principle:
Freedom of movement is part of personal liberty; administrative action restricting it must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and fair.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963)
Facts:
Police surveillance and restrictions on the movements of a suspected person were imposed.
Issue:
Whether such surveillance and restrictions violated the fundamental right to movement.
Judgment:
Court recognized freedom of movement as fundamental but allowed reasonable restrictions for security. However, excessive surveillance without clear legal basis was held unconstitutional.
Principle:
Restrictions on movement require legal sanction and must be proportionate.
3. Bhagwati Prasad v. Union of India (1969)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the denial of a permit to enter a protected forest area.
Issue:
Whether administrative denial of entry permits infringed freedom of movement.
Judgment:
The court upheld the administrative decision, stating that permits regulating entry to sensitive areas are valid to protect environment and public interest.
Principle:
Administrative permits can regulate movement within reasonable limits for public interest.
4. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.R. Binny (1967)
Facts:
Satwant Singh’s passport was revoked, preventing international travel.
Issue:
Whether the revocation was lawful and whether the right to travel abroad is part of fundamental rights.
Judgment:
The Court recognized the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 but allowed reasonable restrictions under law.
Principle:
International travel is a facet of freedom of movement but can be regulated.
5. Delhi Administration v. Surinder Singh (1969)
Facts:
Petitioner was denied a permit to live in a restricted zone.
Issue:
Whether such restrictions violated freedom of movement and residence.
Judgment:
The court held that administrative restrictions must be reasonable, based on valid law, and not arbitrary.
Principle:
Permits restricting residence or movement must follow legal procedure and not violate fundamental rights arbitrarily.
6. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (2011) (Public Interest Litigation)
Facts:
Challenge to the validity of police imposing curfew orders restricting movement in a certain area.
Issue:
Whether curfew orders violating freedom of movement were justified.
Judgment:
Court upheld curfew orders as reasonable restrictions justified for public order but stressed that they must be of limited duration and necessary.
Principle:
Public order justifies temporary restrictions on movement, subject to judicial review.
7. Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar (1987)
Facts:
Petitioner challenged refusal of permit to move goods across state borders.
Issue:
Whether refusal violated the right to freedom of movement.
Judgment:
Court held that economic movement (trade and goods) can be regulated but such regulation must be reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Principle:
Freedom of movement includes economic activity but is subject to regulation in public interest.
IV. Summary of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Freedom of Movement is Fundamental | Recognized as part of personal liberty and constitutional right. |
| Reasonable Restrictions Allowed | For public order, security, health, environment, or morality. |
| Procedural Fairness Required | Administrative permits or restrictions require due process and fairness. |
| Non-Arbitrariness | Restrictions must be based on valid law, reasons must be given. |
| Proportionality | Restrictions must be proportionate to legitimate objectives. |
| Right to Appeal | Affected persons must have access to remedies or appeal. |
V. Practical Examples of Administrative Permits Restricting Movement
Protected area entry permits (e.g., forest reserves, tribal areas)
Curfew or police orders limiting movement for security
Residential permits in restricted zones (e.g., government housing, cantonments)
Travel permits in conflict zones or emergency areas
VI. Conclusion
Freedom of movement is a vital right but not absolute. Administrative permits regulate this right to balance individual liberty with public interest. Courts ensure such regulations comply with constitutional safeguards, requiring legality, reasonableness, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments