High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Criminal Writ Petitions Challenging Externment Orders Under Section 56 of Goa Police Act, 1869 — Orders Quashed for Violation of Natural Justice and Lack of Material. The court held that externment orders must be based on specific instances, subjective satisfaction, and consideration of less drastic remedies, and failure to do so renders them void.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 19:09:35

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns a batch of criminal writ petitions filed by individuals challenging externment orders passed against them under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869 by the Deputy Collector and SDM of Pernem and Mapusa. The petitioners, including Chandan Patekar, Abraham Cardoz, Priscilla Cardoz, and Suraksha Patekar, were ordered to be externed from various areas in Goa for periods ranging from six months to two years on grounds of alleged involvement in criminal activities. The petitioners contended that the externment orders were passed without proper application of mind, without affording them a meaningful opportunity of hearing, and without considering less drastic remedies. The State of Goa and the police authorities defended the orders, arguing that they were based on material showing the petitioners' criminal antecedents and were necessary to maintain public order. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869, which empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to extern a person if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to commit an offence or cause danger to public peace. The court held that the power of externment is a drastic measure that affects the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, and therefore must be exercised with great caution. The court found that in the present cases, the show cause notices issued to the petitioners were vague and did not specify the precise instances of criminal activity. The externment orders were not speaking orders and did not record the subjective satisfaction of the authority based on credible material. Moreover, the authorities failed to consider whether less restrictive measures, such as binding over the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would be sufficient. Consequently, the High Court quashed the externment orders in all the petitions, holding that they were violative of principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869. The court directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh if so advised, after giving the petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Freedom of Movement - Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of Constitution of India - Externment Order - The right to reside and move freely is a fundamental right, and any restriction by way of externment must be reasonable and proportionate, based on credible material and after following principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-24)

B) Criminal Procedure - Externment - Section 56 of Goa Police Act, 1869 - Subjective Satisfaction - The authority must record subjective satisfaction based on specific instances of criminal activity, not vague allegations; failure to do so vitiates the order. (Paras 10-18)

C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 56 of Goa Police Act, 1869 - The show cause notice must contain precise allegations and the externment order must be a speaking order; non-compliance renders the order void. (Paras 12-20)

D) Criminal Procedure - Externment - Less Drastic Remedies - Section 56 of Goa Police Act, 1869 - Before resorting to externment, the authority must consider whether other less restrictive measures (e.g., binding over under Section 107 CrPC) would suffice; failure to do so makes the order unsustainable. (Paras 15-22)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869 against the petitioners are sustainable in law, particularly when they were passed without proper application of mind, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and without considering less drastic remedies.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal writ petitions and quashed the externment orders passed against the petitioners. The court directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh if so advised, after giving the petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing.

Law Points

Externment order under Section 56 of Goa Police Act
1869 requires subjective satisfaction based on material
opportunity of hearing
and speaking order
violation of natural justice renders order void
failure to consider less drastic remedies invalidates externment

Case Details

2026:BHC-GOA:708

Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 2026 with Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

2026-04-07

2026:BHC-GOA:708

Mr. Athnain Naik, Mr. Savio Misquita, Mr. Pravin Faldessai, APP, Mr. S.G. Bhobe, PP

Chandan Patekar, Abraham Cardoz, Priscilla Cardoz, Suraksha Patekar

State of Goa, Deputy Collector & SDM, Police Inspector

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of externment orders and setting aside of the proceedings.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were externed from various areas in Goa without proper application of mind, without adequate opportunity of hearing, and without consideration of less drastic remedies.

Previous Decisions

Externment orders were passed by the Deputy Collector & SDM, Pernem and Mapusa, which were challenged before the High Court.

Issues

Whether the externment orders under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869 were passed in violation of principles of natural justice? Whether the authority had subjective satisfaction based on credible material? Whether less drastic remedies were considered before ordering externment?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the show cause notices were vague, no proper hearing was given, and the orders were not speaking orders. Respondents argued that the orders were based on material showing criminal antecedents and were necessary for public order.

Ratio Decidendi

Externment under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869 is a drastic measure affecting fundamental rights; it requires subjective satisfaction based on specific instances, a speaking order, and consideration of less drastic remedies; failure to comply with natural justice renders the order void.

Judgment Excerpts

The power of externment is a drastic measure which affects the fundamental right of a citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India. The show cause notice must contain precise allegations and the externment order must be a speaking order. Before resorting to externment, the authority must consider whether other less restrictive measures would suffice.

Procedural History

The Deputy Collector & SDM, Pernem and Mapusa passed externment orders under Section 56 of the Goa Police Act, 1869 against the petitioners. The petitioners filed criminal writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging these orders. The High Court heard the matters and delivered judgment on April 7, 2026.