No Separate Domicile For States; State Reorganization Cannot Take Away Fundamental Right Of Indian Citizens
No Separate Domicile for States; State Reorganization Cannot Take Away Fundamental Rights of Indian Citizens
Introduction
India is a Union of States under the Constitution, where citizens enjoy uniform fundamental rights irrespective of the state they reside in. The concept of domicile is generally a legal term indicating the state where a person has a permanent home or intends to reside permanently. However, Indian constitutional law does not recognize separate domicile rights that would restrict citizens' fundamental rights when they move across states.
State reorganization, including the creation or division of states, cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to Indian citizens, including freedom of movement, residence, and equality before law.
Constitutional Provisions Relevant to This Topic
Article 14 - Right to Equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 19(1)(d) and (e) - Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of India.
Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 371 and its various clauses - Special provisions for certain states, but these cannot override fundamental rights.
Concept of Domicile in Indian Constitutional Law
Indian law does not confer exclusive domicile-based rights restricting fundamental freedoms.
Citizens of India have uniform rights across all states.
No state can enact laws or policies that effectively create separate domiciles limiting the rights of citizens from other states.
State Reorganization and Its Effect
The States Reorganization Act, 1956, and subsequent reorganizations of states based on linguistic or administrative reasons, have never affected the fundamental rights of citizens.
States can have certain special provisions (like in Article 371 for some states), but these cannot violate fundamental rights.
The reorganization cannot restrict a citizen’s freedom to move, reside, or work anywhere in India.
Landmark Case Laws
1. M.S. Golwalkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 740
The Supreme Court held that no state can deprive an Indian citizen of the right to reside and settle in its territory.
State laws or policies cannot impose domicile requirements that infringe fundamental rights.
It emphasized that the Constitution provides unrestricted freedom of movement and residence to all citizens.
2. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252
The Supreme Court stated that citizens of India have equal rights in all states, and special provisions cannot override constitutional rights.
3. Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 1
Although this case primarily dealt with elections and rights, the Supreme Court reiterated that fundamental rights including freedom of movement and equality cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
4. Union of India v. L. Chandra Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Highlighted the supremacy of fundamental rights over any administrative or legislative actions by states.
Why No Separate Domicile?
Allowing separate domicile for states would create fragmentation of citizenship rights.
It would contradict the unity and integrity of India as a single nation.
It would discriminate against citizens on the basis of place of birth or residence.
The right to move and settle anywhere in India is integral to the concept of Indian citizenship.
Special Provisions vs Fundamental Rights
Some states have special provisions under Article 371 and its sub-clauses (like Nagaland, Manipur, Maharashtra-Goa, etc.) giving special rights to residents.
However, these cannot deny or dilute fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and cannot be overridden by state laws or special provisions.
Summary
No state can create a separate domicile criterion that restricts Indian citizens from residing or settling in that state.
Fundamental rights, especially Article 19(1)(d) and (e), guarantee freedom of movement and residence throughout India.
State reorganization or special provisions must not infringe upon these rights.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that citizenship rights are uniform across the Union, and any state action violating this will be struck down.
RELATED Blog
0 comments