A state law was passed for compulsory wearing of helmets by the drivers of two wheelers. An affected person challenges the law as violative of his freedom of movement under Art. 19(1)(d) Decide.
As per Art. 19(5) of the Indian Constitution, the affected person cannot challenge the law as violative of his freedom of movement under Art. 19(1)(d).
As per Art. 19(1)(d), all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
However, as per Art. 19(5), Art. 19(1)(d) cannot prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of such rights in the interests of the general public.
Thus, as per Art. 19(1)(d), the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on the ground of “the interest of general public”.
In Ajay Canu v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 156, the Supreme Court held that the rule of compulsory wearing helmets was valid as it was made for the good of the people and imposed reasonable restriction on the freedom of movement.