The judgment establishes that restrictions on movement within the territory can be justified if they are in the interests of protecting vulnerable groups and the security of the State, and such restrictions may be considered reasonable under Art.19 (5) of the Constitution of India.

1. The petitioner, a citizen of India and a native of Androth Island which is one among the group of Islands in the Union Territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, challenges S.9 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Laws) Regulation.8 of 1965 and R.3 to 9 and 14 of the Laccadive Minicoy and Aminidivi Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967 (for convenience referred to in this judgment as Regulation and Rules respectively) and particularly seeks a mandamus directing the Administrator of such Union Territory to forbear from interfering with the right of the Advocate of the petitioner to move freely throughout the Union Territory of Laccadives. The Androth island is one among the group of Islands generally called as Laccadive Islands, Agati, Kavarati and Kalpeni are the other main Islands in this group. These are coral reefs situate in the Arabian Sea away and wast of the western shores of the mainland. These Islands became part of the British Empire in 1909. The Islands are accessable to the mainland by Ships regularly plying in the route. The natives of these Islands are educationally and economically backward. The area is directly under the Union Government as its territory and is one where considerable attention is bestowed in the matter of development. Entry into these Islands was restricted from very early times. Even under Regulation.) of 1912 as amended later by Regulation.) of 1926, the residence of non-islanders in these islands was regulated with a view to see that there was no exploitation of the Islanders by the mainlanders. The land available to the islanders was very limited and it was necessary to preserve this to them. The Madras Regulation.) of 1912 was later abrogated and Regulation.8 of 1965 was enacted. S.9 of the Regulation enabled the Administrator of the Union Territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Aminidivi Islands to make rules with the previous sanction of the Central Government imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe on the right of any person who was not a native of the islands to visit or reside in the islands. Rules were framed in exercise of the powers so conferred and these are the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Island (Registrations on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967.

2. The petitioner avers that be was the complainant in C.C.1 of 1971 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Androth, that the complaint was presented through an Advocate of Calicut Sri. P. M. Mohammed Ali when he visited the island in March 1971 for appearing in another case, that the services of the counsel was sought by him even later in the case but counsel was unwilling to go over to the islands for the reason that in order to visit the island it was necessary that he should seek a permit and abide by the restrictions under the rules which he was not willing to subject himself to. It is for this reason that the petitioner complains that the Rules operate as an infringement on the fundamental rights of the petitioner and therefore ought to be struck down as unconstitutional.

3. At the hearing counsel Sri. Shamsuddin fairly conceded that the attack can be only to the Rules and not to S.9 of the Regulation since that section enables only the imposition of reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of the scheduled tribes and these restrictions are saved under Art.19 (5) of the Constitution. The complaint is really that the Rules framed pursuant to these powers are not Rales imposing reasonable restrictions either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe. That is the only question urged at the hearing before me and therefore I am confining the consideration in this case to that question only.

4. It may be profitable to refer to the scheme of the Rules. R.3 prohib