Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ayub Abdul Sattar Shaikh, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, directing his externment from Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai, Thane, and Raigad districts for four years. The show cause notice dated 16th May 2012 proposed externment for two years based on various offences within the limits of Deonar and Mankhurd Police Stations. After the petitioner made submissions, the Assistant Commissioner of Police forwarded the case to the externing authority, who passed the impugned order for four years. The petitioner's appeal to the Principal Secretary (Home Department) was rejected on 28th January 2013. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, found that the externment order was excessive as it covered a much larger area than the petitioner's alleged prejudicial activities, which were confined to two police stations. The court held that an externment order must not be excessive and must have a rational nexus between the area of externment and the prejudicial activities. Since there was no mention of any prejudicial activity in the externed areas, the order was unsustainable. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Excessive Area - The externment order covering four districts was held excessive as the alleged prejudicial activities were confined to areas within Deonar and Mankhurd Police Stations only. The court held that an externment order must not cover a larger area than reasonably necessary and must have a live link between the area of externment and the prejudicial activities. (Paras 3-4)
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 56(1) - Rational Nexus - The court reiterated that there must be an objectively assessable rational nexus between the areas of externment and the prejudicial activities of the externee. The absence of any mention of prejudicial activities in the externed areas rendered the order unsustainable. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was excessive and lacked a rational nexus between the areas of externment and the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order and the appellate order. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must not be excessive
- must have rational nexus between area of externment and prejudicial activities
- order of externment is a curtailment of civil liberties demanding precision and non-arbitrariness
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 98
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel
Mr. U. N. Tripathi for the Petitioner, Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondents-State
Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai; Principal Secretary (Spl.) Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order and the appellate order.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from four districts for four years despite his alleged prejudicial activities being confined to two police stations.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner of Police issued a show cause notice on 16th May 2012; the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order; the appeal to the Principal Secretary was rejected on 28th January 2013.
Issues
Whether the externment order was excessive in covering four districts when the alleged activities were confined to two police stations.
Whether there was a rational nexus between the area of externment and the prejudicial activities.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the externment order was excessive and lacked a live link between the areas of externment and the alleged prejudicial activities.
Respondents argued in support of the order, but the court found the petitioner's submissions correct.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must not be excessive and must have a rational nexus between the area of externment and the prejudicial activities of the externee. The order must be precise and non-arbitrary, as it curtails civil liberties.
Judgment Excerpts
The externment order is entirely excessive. The alleged prejudicial activities noted in the show cause notice and the externment order are all within the limits of the Deonar and Mankhurd Police Stations.
It is fundamental that an order of externment is a curtailment of civil liberties and, for that reason alone, demands a degree of precision, care and non-arbitrariness.
Two principles regarding the specified areas of externment are inviolate: first, that the externment order must not be excessive, i.e., it must not cover a larger area than is reasonably necessary; and second, there must be some objectively assessable, rational nexus and a live link between the areas of externment and the prejudicial activities of the externees.
Procedural History
On 16th May 2012, show cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police. Petitioner made submissions. Case sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police who passed externment order. Petitioner appealed to Principal Secretary, who rejected appeal on 28th January 2013. Petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2013 in Bombay High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 4th September 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a)(b)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
