Constitutional rights — Should migration between Indian states be restricted? Statement: Should there be a restriction on migration of people from one state to another in India? Arguments: I. No. Any Indian citizen has a basic right to live anywhere in the country and cannot be stopped. II. Yes. This is the way to bring equitable distribution of resources across states.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt concerns freedom of movement and residence within India versus a proposed restriction to engineer equity. We must judge which argument is constitutionally and pragmatically stronger.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Indian citizens enjoy fundamental rights including movement and residence subject to reasonable restrictions in narrowly defined circumstances.
• Equitable resource distribution is a policy goal but typically pursued through fiscal and development instruments, not blanket mobility curbs.

Concept / Approach:
Arguments grounded in constitutional guarantees and widely accepted governance mechanisms are strong. Proposals to curtail fundamental rights require compelling, narrowly tailored justification, which Argument II does not provide.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Inter-state migration helps labor markets and national integration; equity is better handled via finance commissions and development schemes, not by curbing rights.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• II strong: unsupported.
• Either/Neither/Both: do not reflect the clear superiority of I.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming central planning via movement controls will fairly allocate resources; it often creates inefficiency and rights violations.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong