The Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s ability to issue an externment order (a directive limiting certain people’s access to specific regions) should only be used in “extraordinary situations.” The decision was based on an appeal filed by Rahmat Khan, a journalist who had received an externment order from the Maharashtra police. For a year, he was barred from visiting Amravati City or the Amravati Rural District. Externship orders, according to the court, are useful in maintaining law and order. They cannot, however, be used as a form of retaliation. On weak grounds, a person’s basic right to dwell anywhere in the country and to travel freely across the country cannot be denied.
Every citizen of India has the right to roam freely across the nation under Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution. This privilege is solely protected from government action, not from private persons. Furthermore, it is only available to citizens and business shareholders, not to foreigners or legal entities such as firms or corporations. Every Indian citizen has the right to “reside and settle in any part of India’s territory,” according to Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. The clause’s goal is to break down internal barriers in India or any of its portions. Only two grounds are listed in Article 19(5) of the constitution for restricting these basic rights: the general public’s interests and the preservation of the interests of any designated tribe.
Source: The Hindu