Sir, I feel the position is ambiguous and clumsy and should be made clear. I fail to understand why clause (d) has been tacked with sub-clause (5). Free movement has been restricted by that sub-clause. My own personal view is that there should not have been any restriction regarding movement. The citizens should have been given a free right to move. Only on administrative or political grounds the Central or provincial legislatures could be empowered to frame laws judiciously by which they can restrict the movement of the people and this power should be worked sparingly and in very emergent circumstances. In every matter of freedom, restrictions have been imposed in the interest of general public. What this interest is, we do not know and has not been stated anywhere. Such words can be interpreted differently in different States and the Centre and may give rise to separate and conflicting laws. Sir, this would create great confusion. Therefore, I submit, if this article is read and viewed, it only gives rise to disappointment, and with a little more effort and with as lightinclination this article could have been framed in such a language that it would have been a model article in the whole of the Constitution.
