Question

Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. 

Legal Principle: Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But at the same time, Article 19(5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on the ground of interest of the general public.

Factual Situation: Wearing of the helmet is made compulsory for all two-wheeler riders by a law enacted by the State. The constitutionality of the law is questioned before the High Court on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(d) of the petitioner. Will the petitioner succeed?

Decision:

पर्याय

• Yes, because the restriction is not reasonable and no interest of the general public is protected by this law. 

• No, because the restriction is reasonable as it intends to protect the interest of the general public by preventing the loss of lives of a citizen of India.

• Yes, because freedom of movement is a fundamental right of every citizen of India and the State cannot take it away by way of legislation but has to amend the constitution to take away the fundamental rights.

• No, because the freedom of movement will not be  violated by the impugned legislation 

Answer 1

No, because the restriction is reasonable as it intends to protect the interest of the general public by preventing the loss of lives of a citizen of India.

Explanation:

No, because the restriction is reasonable as it intends to protect the interest of the general public by preventing the loss of lives of a citizen of India. Even though Article 19(1)(d) guarantees the free movement to all citizens throughout the country, wearing of a helmet is made compulsory for all two-wheelers is constitutional as this restriction is reasonable in favour of the interest of the public in order to prevent injury and loss of life of its citizens. Freedom of movement is not violated by the implanted legislation. (Thakur Bharatsingh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. AIR 1964 MP 175, 1964 CriLJ 160)