Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge by the petitioner against an externment order issued under the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The petitioner, a vendor of soft drinks, claimed that he had been coerced into becoming a 'stock witness' for the police over many years, providing false testimony in numerous cases to maintain his business. He argued that the externment order was arbitrary and a violation of his freedom of movement. The police alleged that his activities posed a danger to the community, but the petitioner contended that these allegations were vague and lacked credible evidence. The Assistant Commissioner of Police stated that witnesses were examined in camera, but the court found the allegations insufficiently substantiated. The court emphasized that any exercise of police power must be fair and based on clear evidence of danger to the community. It held that vague allegations and secret hearings violated the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The court ultimately allowed the petition, indicating that no further action would be taken against the petitioner and urging the police to avoid reliance on dubious practices in their operations.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Externment Powers - Validity of Externment Order - Delhi Police Act, 1978, Sections 47 and 50 - The externment order must be based on clear and present danger supported by credible material, not vague allegations. The court held that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and did not meet the stringent requirements for externment, thus violating his fundamental rights (Paras 1264-1268).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order against the petitioner was valid under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and whether it violated his fundamental rights.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order and emphasizing the need for clear and credible evidence for such actions under the Delhi Police Act. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and did not meet the legal standards required for externment.
Law Points
- Externment powers
- police authority
- fundamental rights
- mala fides
- natural justice
- vague allegations
