Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged a government notification and a consequent externment order. The petitioner, facing an order of externment dated 28.04.2026 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, contended that the notification dated 18.11.2025, which purported to confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 on the Superintendent of Police, was invalid. The notification, bearing No. HD 520 SST 2025, was issued by respondent No.2 and consisted of two parts: one exercising powers under Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the other appointing Additional District Magistrates and Special Executive Magistrates and conferring powers on the Superintendent of Police under various provisions including Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The petitioner contended that the Superintendent of Police lacked jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 because that provision does not include the Superintendent of Police among the competent authorities. The respondents relied on the notification to sustain the conferment of power. During the hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate admitted that the notification had not been published in the Official Gazette. The High Court examined the language of Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, noting that Section 55 expressly identifies the Commissioner in Commissionerate areas and, in other areas, the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government as the only authorities competent to exercise the power. The court also noted Section 56 identifies the Commissioner, District Magistrate, or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government. The court held that the notification failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirement of publication in the Official Gazette under Section 55, and that publication is not an empty formality where the statute prescribes it as a condition for delegated power. Further, the court held that even if the notification had been published, the Superintendent of Police is not a statutory authority contemplated by Section 55 and cannot be equated with a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The court reasoned that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot confer such power on an authority not contemplated by the statute. Consequently, the court found that the exercise of power by the Superintendent of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was without jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Police Law - Externment - Statutory Authority Under Section 55 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Power to remove persons about to commit offences is conferred only on Commissioner in commissioner areas and on District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by Government in other areas; Superintendent of Police is not contemplated. The notification dated 18.11.2025 purported to confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 on Superintendent of Police. Held that exercise of power by Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction because the statutory authority identified cannot be substituted by an executive act. (Paras 4-14) B) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Mandatory Official Gazette Publication - Section 55 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 requires extension of provision by notification in Official Gazette; the notification dated 18.11.2025 was not published. Held that statutory notification acquires legal efficacy only upon gazette publication; absence of publication renders notification ineffective to confer jurisdiction, and this ground alone invalidates the exercise of power. (Paras 8-10) C) Statutory Interpretation - Executive Delegation - Limits of Executive Power - Where a statute prescribes authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, executive cannot by notification confer power on authority not contemplated; Superintendent of Police cannot be equated with District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Held that even a gazette-published notification cannot cure inherent lack of statutory competence of the Superintendent of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 18.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2 validly conferred jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Police to exercise powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and whether the consequent externment order dated 28.04.2026 is valid.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the notification dated 18.11.2025 was ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the Superintendent of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 because it was not published in the Official Gazette and because the Superintendent of Police was not a statutory authority contemplated by Section 55. Consequently, the exercise of power by the Superintendent of Police was without jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Section 55
- Karnataka Police Act
- 1963 vests externment power only in Commissioner
- District Magistrate
- or Sub-Divisional Magistrate
- notification must be published in Official Gazette
- Superintendent of Police cannot be equated with District Magistrate
- executive cannot delegate statutory power to authority not contemplated
