Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramila Anand Sing, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai, dated 2nd December 2003, which exterred her from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, and Raigad Districts for two years under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order was confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security) in January 2004. The petitioner contended that only one criminal case was registered against her, and the two in-camera statements relied upon by the authority were stereotype and lacked substance. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the material was insufficient to justify the draconian measure of externment, which impinges upon the fundamental right to move freely. The court relied on the decision in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur, AIR 1969 Bombay 351, and quashed the externment order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sufficiency of Material - The court considered whether a single criminal case and two stereotype in-camera statements constitute sufficient material to justify an externment order. Held that such material is inadequate to invoke the draconian provision of externment which restricts the fundamental right of locomotion. The order was quashed. (Paras 2-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Right to Move Freely - Article 19(1)(d) of Constitution of India - Restriction by Externment Order - The court examined the impact of an externment order on the fundamental right to move freely throughout India. Held that the material relied upon must be substantial and not stereotype to justify such a restriction. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, based on only one criminal case and two stereotype in-camera statements, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order dated 2nd December 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai, and the appellate order dated January 2004 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security).
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act requires sufficient material showing person is dangerous or habitual offender
- single criminal case and stereotype in-camera statements are insufficient
- fundamental right to move freely cannot be curtailed without adequate grounds
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.392 of 2004
Mr. Madhukar Dalvi with Mr. S.V. Pradhan for the Petitioner, Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the Respondents
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order passed under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 2nd December 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai, and the appellate order dated January 2004 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security).
Filing Reason
The petitioner was exterred from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, and Raigad Districts for two years based on only one criminal case and two stereotype in-camera statements, which the petitioner argued was insufficient material to justify such a draconian order.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai passed the externment order on 2nd December 2003, which was confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security) in January 2004.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, based on only one criminal case and two stereotype in-camera statements, is sustainable.
Whether the material relied upon by the authority is sufficient to justify the restriction on the fundamental right to move freely.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that only one criminal case was registered against her, and the two in-camera statements were stereotype, showing the absurdity of the material.
The petitioner contended that the material was insufficient to take recourse to the draconian provision of Section 56, which restricts locomotion and impinges upon fundamental rights.
The petitioner relied on the decision in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur, AIR 1969 Bombay 351.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, requires sufficient material to show that the person is dangerous or a habitual offender. A single criminal case and two stereotype in-camera statements are not sufficient to justify such a draconian measure that restricts the fundamental right to move freely.
Judgment Excerpts
The first contention raised before this Court is that there was only one criminal case registered against the Petitioner.
the material which has been taken into account by the competent authority cannot be said to be sufficient to take recourse to draconian provision, such as section 56 of the Act, which restricts the locomotion of the person to enter a particular area which in turn impinges upon his fundamental right.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai passed an externment order on 2nd December 2003 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, exterring the petitioner from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, and Raigad Districts for two years. The petitioner appealed to the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security), who confirmed the order in January 2004. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.392 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and allowed on 4th March 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b)
