Daily Current Affairs : 16-January-2024

The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court has sparked discussions on the applicability of Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution to foreigners seeking the right to reside in India. This article, a fundamental right under the Right to Freedom, grants Indian citizens the liberty to settle anywhere within the country.

Background:

The judgment unfolded during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition, filed by the uncle of Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladeshi national allegedly in illegal custody. The court’s emphasis on the foreign national’s inability to assert the right to reside in India raised pertinent questions about the constitutional nuances involved.

Court’s Emphasis on Limited Rights for Foreigners:

The Delhi High Court underscored the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that the Indian government possesses absolute and unlimited power to expel foreigners. This highlights a critical distinction between the rights afforded to Indian citizens and those extended to foreign nationals, emphasizing the sovereignty of the nation in determining residency rights.

Article 19(1)(e) and Reasonable Restrictions:

Article 19(1)(e) acknowledges the right to reside and settle within India. However, the constitution allows for reasonable restrictions to be imposed by law. These restrictions may be justified in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. This caveat reflects the balancing act required between individual liberties and the broader welfare of the nation.

Important Points:
  • Collective Harmony in Legal Interpretation:
    • Delhi High Court’s recent ruling highlights the collective perspective over individual claims.
    • The judgment establishes a clear distinction between the constitutional rights of Indian citizens and the limited rights of foreigners.
  • Sovereignty of the Nation:
    • Emphasis on the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Indian government holds absolute and unlimited power to expel foreigners.
    • Reflects the nation’s sovereignty in determining residency rights, prioritizing the collective interest over individual claims.
  • Constitutional Right and Reasonable Restrictions:
    • Article 19(1)(e) grants the right to reside and settle in India, but with provisions for reasonable restrictions.
    • Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of the general public or for protecting the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
  • Balancing Individual Liberties and State Interests:
    • The judgment underscores the delicate balance needed between individual freedoms and the broader welfare of the nation.
    • Reflects the nation’s pursuit of communal welfare over individual rights in navigating complexities related to immigration and national security.
  • Clear Demarcation Between Rights:
    • The ruling establishes a clear demarcation between the constitutional rights of Indian citizens and the limited rights extended to foreigners.
    • Reinforces the idea that individual rights are secondary to the collective welfare of the community and the nation.
  • Nuanced Legal Landscape:
    • The judgment serves as a reminder of the nuanced legal landscape surrounding the right to reside in India.
    • Highlights the intricate dance between individual liberties and state interests, emphasizing the need for a harmonious coexistence within the legal framework.
Why In News

The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a foreigner cannot claim the right to reside in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, which grants all citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of India, emphasizing the distinction between the constitutional rights afforded to citizens and non-citizens in matters of residency.

MCQs about Right to Reside in India

  1. What is the primary focus of the Delhi High Court’s recent ruling?
    A. Emphasizing individual liberties
    B. Asserting foreigners’ unlimited residency rights
    C. Balancing collective interests and individual claims
    D. Establishing exclusive rights for Indian citizens
    Correct Answer: C. Balancing collective interests and individual claims
    Explanation: The ruling primarily focuses on striking a balance between collective interests and individual claims, as evident in the demarcation between the rights of Indian citizens and those of foreigners.
  2. According to the Delhi High Court, what power does the Indian government hold in relation to expelling foreigners?
    A. Limited power subject to judicial review
    B. Absolute and unlimited power
    C. Conditional power with parliamentary approval
    D. No power to expel foreigners
    Correct Answer: B. Absolute and unlimited power
    Explanation: The court emphasizes that the Indian government possesses absolute and unlimited power to expel foreigners, highlighting the nation’s sovereignty.
  3. Which constitutional article grants the right to reside and settle in India as a fundamental right?
    A. Article 21
    B. Article 19(1)(e)
    C. Article 14
    D. Article 32
    Correct Answer: B. Article 19(1)(e)
    Explanation: Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution grants the right to reside and settle in any part of India as a fundamental right.
  4. What is the significance of the reasonable restrictions ?
    A. They limit the rights of Indian citizens
    B. They are unrelated to the general public’s interest
    C. They apply exclusively to foreign nationals
    D. They balance individual liberties with broader national welfare
    Correct Answer: D. They balance individual liberties with broader national welfare
    Explanation: The reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of the general public or for protecting the interests of any Scheduled Tribe, highlighting the need for a balance between individual liberties and national welfare.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading