Article 19(5) is a provision within the Constitution of India that defines the permissible limits for restricting two specific fundamental rights of citizens. It is a mechanism that balances the individual's freedom with the State's power to regulate in the public interest.
The provision was created when the Constitution was enacted in 1950, as part of the scheme of reasonable restrictions that apply to the six freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1). Its purpose is to allow the State to impose necessary limitations on the right to move freely throughout India (Article 19(1)(d)) and the right to reside and settle in any part of India (Article 19(1)(e)).
Article 19(5) works by stating that nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19(1) shall prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on these rights. These restrictions can only be imposed on two specific grounds: in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision, for instance, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalya (1964), where it upheld the restriction of a person's movement for public health and morals as a reasonable restriction. Conversely, in Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. State of Bombay (1954), the Court struck down a law allowing removal from India as an unreasonable restriction.
The provision connects directly to the larger concept of reasonable restrictions found in clauses (2) through (6) of Article 19. A significant change occurred with the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which omitted the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property (Article 19(1)(f)) and removed it from the purview of Article 19(5). The core mechanism of Article 19(5)—allowing restrictions on movement and residence for the general public or Scheduled Tribes—has remained the same since that amendment.