Question Description
The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.In the same case, what would be the case if we apply the principle laid down by Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das?a)The action of the state would not be valid because Article 19 is always subjected to reasonable restrictions.b)The action of the state would stand valid because if the permission is approved, it might jeopardize the public at large.c)The action of the state would stand valid because the police denied it in the interests of general public.d)The action of the state would not be valid because they might be of emergent circumstances.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.