Dimensions of Freedom of Movement

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Protecting Scheduled Tribes is an explicit constitutional ground for restricting Art 19 movement. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Impounding a passport restricts EXTERNAL movement (leaving India), which the Supreme Court ruled falls under Article 21, not Article 19. The correct counterpart is the application of Article 21 to international travel. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. This was the exact, paradigm-shifting ruling of the landmark Maneka Gandhi case.

The Assertion is correct. Domestic tribal-area bans are constitutionally distinct from passport denials. Reason (R1) is true and perfectly explains the assertion. It cleanly delineates the internal (Art 19) vs external (Art 21) constitutional boundaries. Reason (R2) is factually false. Governors have absolutely no such power; deportation is a highly regulated Union subject. The correct counterpart is the strict constitutional restriction on executive deportation.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 19 does not govern international travel (passports). The correct counterpart is the split jurisdiction of travel rights. Statement 2 is correct. It accurately applies Article 19(5) (tribal interests) to domestic internal movement, and applies Article 21 (Maneka Gandhi precedent) to external/international movement. Statement 3 is incorrect. It completely inverts the constitutional application of Articles 19 and 21.

Statement 1 is incorrect. It is NOT without geographical exceptions (tribal areas can be restricted). The correct counterpart is the qualified nature of internal movement. Statement 2 is correct. Protecting STs is a valid restriction under Art 19(5). Statement 3 is incorrect. It is NOT written in Article 19 (which only covers internal movement). The correct counterpart is the absence of external travel in Art 19. Statement 4 is correct. This is the landmark ruling moving external travel to Art 21. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.