Launching the terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpim) bill in May, the Home Office said "relocation to another part of the country without consent will be scrapped". But it has now brought back the powers, reserving them for "exceptional circumstances".

The emergency legislation would enable the home secretary to specify more stringent restrictions on suspected terrorists in exceptional circumstances, the Home Office said.

These would include the power to relocate the individual without their consent to a different part of the country and tighter restrictions on association and communications, it said.

The enhanced Tpim bill will be put before parliament should exceptional circumstances arise. Under the measures, the home secretary "may impose restrictions on the individual leaving a specified area or travelling outside that area", the draft bill said. A suspect under such an order may also be forced to hand in their passport.

The home secretary could also impose restrictions on the individual's possession or use of electronic communication devices, including both computers and telephones. Further restrictions could also be imposed to limit who the suspect communicates or associates with, where the suspect works or what he or she studies. The restrictions imposed under the Tpim were an "imperfect but necessary step", the Home Office said.

It also rejected a recommendation from the joint committee on human rights that an alternative system of restrictions linked to an ongoing criminal investigation, such as that proposed by the former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald, was appropriate.

"Tpim notices, like the control orders they will replace, are intended to be used in such cases – where there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution, and there is no imminent prospect that further investigation will yield evidence that could be used to prosecute," the Home Office said.

"In such cases the government is faced with a stark choice between taking no action at all – potentially leaving the public unprotected from a serious threat – and imposing preventative measures to protect the public.

"In such a case the purpose of the measures is not to facilitate the gathering of evidence – which process will already have been exhausted, although of course it will continue as far as is possible while restrictions are in force – but to protect the public and disrupt or prevent the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity."

May's decision to impose a control order on a terror suspect banned from London was upheld by the high court in July. Mr Justice Owen, sitting in London, ruled that the restrictions imposed on CD's freedom, including the decision to relocate him from London to a Midlands city, were a "necessary and proportionate measure for the protection of the public from the risk presented by CD and his associates".

The judge said he was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that CD, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was "a leading figure in a network of Islamist extremists based in north London and has been involved in planning an attack or attacks on members of the public".

The relocation powers were ditched by the coalition under the new terrorist prevention and investigation measures, which will replace control orders from next year.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, warned MPs that plans to water down the control orders would mean that CD could no longer be stopped from living in the capital. Under the draft emergency legislation, such powers would be able to be brought back in exceptional circumstances.