Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abasaheb Balasaheb Warkhade, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging an externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur Division, and confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division. The petitioner contended that the externment order was arbitrary and without proper application of mind, as the authorities did not consider whether less restrictive measures such as binding over or taking security would be sufficient to prevent the alleged harmful activities. The State of Maharashtra and other respondents defended the order, arguing that it was passed after following due procedure and based on material showing the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) and the requirement that the authority must be satisfied that less drastic remedies are inadequate. The court found that the impugned order did not record any such satisfaction and that the authorities had mechanically passed the order without considering alternative measures. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition. The court emphasized that externment orders, being drastic in nature and affecting fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, must be passed only when absolutely necessary and after due consideration of less restrictive alternatives.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Less Restrictive Measures - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court held that before passing an externment order, the authority must consider whether less drastic remedies such as binding over or taking security would suffice. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Reside and Move Freely - Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India - The court observed that externment orders curtail fundamental rights and must be passed only when absolutely necessary. The authority must record satisfaction that no other less restrictive measure is adequate. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the authorities failed to consider whether less restrictive measures would be sufficient to prevent the alleged harmful activities.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 must be preceded by consideration of less restrictive measures
- Failure to consider less drastic remedies renders externment order unsustainable
- Right to reside and move freely under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of Constitution of India cannot be curtailed without adequate justification
