Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal arising from the High Court of Chhattisgarh's dismissal of a writ petition challenging an externment order under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The appellant, Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju, challenged an ex parte externment order dated 04 November 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Raigarh, directing him to remove himself from Raigarh district and contiguous districts for one year. The appellant was in custody in connection with Crime No. 483/2025 when the order was passed. The genesis of the externment proceedings lay in a memorandum dated 03 April 2019 from the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, recommending externment based on ten criminal cases from 2009 to 2019. The District Magistrate registered a case on 03 May 2019, but closed it on 06 October 2025, noting acquittals and no fresh police report after 2019, with a warning to the appellant. Subsequently, two developments intervened: FIR Crime No. 117/2023 under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 regarding unauthorised colony development, and FIR Crime No. 483/2025 registered on 30 October 2025 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged derogatory remarks against Baba Guru Ghasidas, a revered Satnami community figure. The appellant was arrested the same day. The Superintendent of Police submitted a fresh report on 03 November 2025 seeking reconsideration of the closure order. The District Magistrate recalled the closure order and passed the impugned externment order, recording that the appellant had violated the warning, caused resentment among communities, and was a habitual offender hazardous to society, necessitating externment for security and law and order. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which dismissed it on 22 January 2026, relegating him to the statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the externment order was passed ex parte while he was in custody, without notice or hearing, in violation of Section 8 and natural justice; that the District Magistrate lacked power to review or recall its own closure order; and that the factual foundation had eroded because Crime No. 117/2023 was quashed and he was granted bail in Crime No. 483/2025. The respondents argued that Section 9 appeal was a substantive right not to be bypassed, that the externment was a continuation rather than a de novo review, and that the preventive action was justified due to public outrage and threat to public order. The available judgment text does not include the final decision or reasoning of the Supreme Court beyond the recording of submissions.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Externment Order - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, Section 8 - Appellant challenged ex parte externment order dated 04.11.2025 passed while he was in custody without notice or hearing - He contended violation of statutory safeguard under Section 8 and principles of natural justice - The High Court dismissed the writ petition relegating him to appeal under Section 9 (Paras 2, 5, 8). B) Criminal Procedure - Review/Recall of Closure Order - Statutory Power of District Magistrate - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, Sections 5(a), 5(b), 8, 9 - District Magistrate closed externment proceedings on 06.10.2025 but recalled the closure based on fresh report dated 03.11.2025 - Appellant contended no power to suo motu review/recall; respondent contended it was continuation based on supervening events (Paras 4, 6, 8-9). C) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Exhaustion of Statutory Appeal - Section 9 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 - High Court relegated appellant to statutory appeal - Appellant argued self-imposed restriction should not bar writ when order ex facie vitiated by breach of natural justice and want of jurisdiction - Respondent relied on Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 657 (Paras 1, 8-9). D) Preventive Detention - Externment - Fresh Criminal Cases - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 296, 299, 302, 352, 3(5); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(v); Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, Sections 292, 292-C(2),(3) - Externment based on two post-closure FIRs: Crime No.117/2023 under Municipal Corporation Act and Crime No.483/2025 under BNS and SC/ST Act - Respondent argued preventive action justified due to public outrage and threat to public order - Appellant argued FIR No.117/2023 quashed and bail granted in No.483/2025 (Paras 5-6, 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in relegating the appellant to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 without examining the alleged breach of natural justice and want of jurisdiction; Whether the third respondent had statutory power to suo motu review, recall, or reopen its own closure order dated 06 October 2025; Whether the externment order passed ex parte without notice and opportunity of hearing violated Section 8 of the Adhiniyam and principles of natural justice
Law Points
- Natural justice requires notice and opportunity of hearing before externment under Section 8 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam
- 1990
- Statutory alternative remedy under Section 9 should not be bypassed ordinarily but may be bypassed if order ex facie vitiated by breach of natural justice or want of jurisdiction
- District Magistrate's power to review/recall own closure order is questionable
- Preventive externment jurisdiction is preventive not punitive
- Supervening criminal cases may justify reconsideration
