Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an externment order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The order directed the appellant not to enter Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for one year. The appellant, a journalist and social worker, had been exposing alleged misappropriation of public funds under a government scheme for Madrasas in Amravati District. In retaliation, criminal cases were filed against him, leading to the externment proceedings. The core legal issue was whether the externment order was legally sustainable. The appellant argued that the order was based on vague allegations and violated principles of natural justice, as it relied on pending criminal cases that were themselves challenged as malicious. The respondent defended the order as a preventive measure under the Maharashtra Police Act. The Supreme Court analyzed the externment proceedings, noting that such powers are preventive and must be exercised with caution, requiring specific evidence of activities causing public alarm. The court found the externment order lacked cogent evidence and was procedurally flawed, as it was issued while the appellant's challenges to the underlying criminal cases were pending. The court held that the order was not justified and quashed it, allowing the appeal. The decision underscores the need for fairness in externment proceedings and protection against harassment for whistleblowers.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56 - The appellant challenged an externment order issued under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, alleging it was based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The Supreme Court held that externment proceedings must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring specific and cogent evidence of activities causing alarm or danger to the public. The court found the externment order legally unsustainable due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence, and quashed it accordingly. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Preventive Nature - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56 - The court emphasized that the power under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is preventive, not punitive, and must be exercised with caution and fairness. It noted that externment orders cannot be based on vague allegations or used as a tool for harassment, especially when the appellant was engaged in exposing alleged corruption. The court quashed the externment order, holding it was not justified on the facts and evidence presented. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the appellant is legally sustainable
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the externment order dated 07.05.2018, and set aside the High Court judgment
Law Points
- Externment proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice
- require specific and cogent evidence of activities causing alarm or danger
- and cannot be based on vague or unsubstantiated allegations
- the power under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 is preventive
- not punitive
- and must be exercised with caution and fairness
