The Uttarakhand High Court was deeply unhappy with the police for detaining him without even informing his family. The judges strictly warned the police against heavy-handed behavior, calling it “goondagardi” (hooliganism). The Court warmly reminded the authorities about every Indian’s basic freedom, asking: “I have a right to move anywhere in the country. Who are you to stop me?”

1. The freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d) is an absolute right and cannot be restricted by the State under any circumstances.
2. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaces Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), empowering magistrates to issue prohibitory orders in urgent cases of nuisance or danger.
3. Under the landmark D.K. Basu guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the police are legally bound to inform a relative or friend of the detained individual immediately upon arrest.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only    (b) 2 and 3 only    (c) 1 and 3 only    (d) 1, 2 and 3

• Statement 1 — Incorrect (the trap): Do not fall for this exam trap! No Fundamental Right under Article 19 is absolute. Under Article 19(5), the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public or for the protection of Scheduled Tribes.
• Statement 2 — Correct: Under our new criminal justice framework, Section 163 of BNSS directly replaces colonial-era Section 144 of CrPC.
• Statement 3 — Correct: To prevent custodial torture and secret detentions, the Supreme Court’s D.K. Basu (1997) judgment made it legally mandatory for police to inform the detainee’s family or friend immediately.