another question:
21. A state govemment passes a law providing that anyperson suffering from A.I.D.S. must compulsorily be confined in their homes, and may not move about anywhere in the state. The law also provides that medical treatment must be provided to them in their homes, and that they may not travel to hospitals for the same. B, who suffers from A.I.D.S., challenges this law on the ground that it violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India to move freely throughout the territory of Lrdia. Will B's challenge succeed?
Principle: Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Article 19(2)(5) of the Constitution provides that the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution in the interests of the general public.
Options:
-
A. The law violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution; completely restricting the movement of a person suffering from A.I.D.S., without an exception to travel to a hospital to receive medical aid, is an unreasonable restriction. The law will be struck down.
B. The law violates the fundamental right under Article l9(l)(d) of the Constitution; a person suffering from A.I.D.S. would need to travel freely for their treatment to other states, clinics, and to other places, and not just hospitals. The law will be struck down.
C. The law cannot be said to violate the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, since the free movement of a person suffering from A.I.D.S. constitutes a danger to public health. The law is valid"
D. The law cannot be said to violate the fundamental right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution, since it does permit a person suffering from A.I.D.S. to receive treatment at home. As such, it is a reasonable restriction, and is valid.
E. The validity of the law depends upon the availability of medical treatment for persons suffering from A.I.D.S. If the state provides medical practitioners and equipment to have such persons treated at home, the law would only be a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution, and would, therefore, be valid.