Case Note & Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court that had quashed externment orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, against Dharmendra Rathore and Ramu @ Brajmohan Jadon. The High Court held that under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, only the District Magistrate could pass such orders, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990, particularly Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 18. Section 3 empowers the District Magistrate to make restriction orders, while Section 13 allows the State Government or an officer specially empowered by it to exercise similar powers. Section 18 expressly permits the State Government to delegate the powers of the District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The State Government had issued a notification dated 05.03.2003 under Section 13(1) empowering Additional District Magistrates of divisional headquarters to exercise the powers under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on Ajaib Singh, as that case dealt with the Defence of India Act, 1962, which had no equivalent provision for delegation. The Court concluded that the Additional District Magistrate was fully competent to pass the externment order under the valid notification. The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court clarified that the respondents could raise other grounds before the High Court if they so chose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Competent Authority - Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, Sections 3, 13, 18 - The issue was whether an Additional District Magistrate could pass an externment order under the Adhiniyam, 1990. The High Court had held that only the District Magistrate could pass such orders, relying on Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 expressly allows the State Government to delegate powers of the District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate. The notification dated 05.03.2003 under Section 13(1) validly empowered Additional District Magistrates of divisional headquarters to exercise such powers. The Court distinguished Ajaib Singh as it dealt with a different statutory scheme under the Defence of India Act, 1962. Held that the Additional District Magistrate was competent to pass the externment order (Paras 7-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Additional District Magistrate is competent to pass an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, when the State Government has issued a notification under Section 13 empowering him to do so.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that the Additional District Magistrate was competent to pass the externment order under the notification dated 05.03.2003 issued under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1990.
Law Points
- Delegation of powers
- Externment orders
- Competent authority
- Statutory interpretation
- Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam
- 1990
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (1) 110
Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10681/2015) and Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10671/2015)
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Dharmendra Rathore and Ramu @ Brajmohan Jadon
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court judgment quashing externment order
Remedy Sought
State of Madhya Pradesh sought to set aside the High Court's judgment and uphold the externment order
Filing Reason
The High Court held that the Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass externment orders under the Adhiniyam, 1990
Previous Decisions
Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior passed externment order on 26.02.2013; Commissioner, Gwalior Division dismissed appeal on 17.06.2013; Single Judge of High Court allowed writ petition on 30.10.2013; Division Bench dismissed writ appeal on 20.06.2014
Issues
Whether the Additional District Magistrate is competent to pass an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, in light of the notification under Section 13?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The High Court erred in relying on Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh as the statutory scheme under the Adhiniyam, 1990 is different; Section 18 allows delegation to Additional District Magistrate.
Respondent: Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 empower only the District Magistrate; the State Government cannot delegate to an authority lower than District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, the State Government may delegate the powers of the District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate. The notification dated 05.03.2003 under Section 13(1) validly empowered Additional District Magistrates of divisional headquarters to exercise such powers. The Constitution Bench decision in Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh is not applicable as it dealt with a different statutory scheme under the Defence of India Act, 1962, which had no equivalent provision for delegation.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 provides for delegation of powers and duties of District Magistrates. The State Government may by order direct that any power on duty conferred or imposed on a District Magistrate under this Act shall be exercised or performed by such additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and for such areas as may be specified in the order.
In the present case, the State Government had issued a notification under Section 13 delegating the power of the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate... Notification dated 05.03.2003.
Procedural History
The Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior passed an externment order on 26.02.2013. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, which was dismissed on 17.06.2013. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by a Single Judge on 30.10.2013, holding that the Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction. The State filed a writ appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.06.2014, relying on a previous Division Bench judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arvind Sharma. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18
- Defence of India Act, 1962: 3
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: 10(2)
