1. Challenge to an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, following criminal complaints filed against a whistleblower. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 740
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah - Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2021 [@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. 1676 of 2021]
Decided On : 25-08-2021
Important Points
Externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act are drastic measures for exceptional cases. Such orders are arbitrary and unsustainable if based on vindictive, retaliatory FIRs filed as a counterblast to legitimate whistleblowing or RTI queries, as they violate fundamental rights to residence and movement.
Subject
Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
Act Referred
BOMBAY POLICE ACT: S.10(2)
CITY OF BOMBAY POLICE ACT: S.27(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.34, S.384, S.452, S.506(b)
MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT: S.56(1)(a)(b), S.59, S.57, S.58
CITY OF BOMBAY POLICE ACT: S.27(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.34, S.384, S.452, S.506(b)
MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT: S.56(1)(a)(b), S.59, S.57, S.58
Headnote
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Sections 56(1)(a)(b), 58, 56 to 59 - Bombay Police Act - section 10(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 344, 384 ,384, 452, 294, 506(B), 352, 448, 504 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 - Section 27(1) - Remuneration of teachers, scholarship of students - Threatening to kill by abusing and demanding ransom - Upliftment of Muslim community - Government of Maharashtra introduced a scheme for upliftment of Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children - Madrasas registered with the office of Charity Commissioner or Waqf Board which had completed three years were to be given priority for allotment of funds for basic amenities, remuneration of teachers, scholarship of students - Appellant claims to be a religious minded journalist and social worker, who has been fighting against corruption and misuse of public funds - Appellant, his daughter was studying in a District - Appellant came to know of irregularities in running of including misappropriation of public money distributed to District, by State of Maharashtra - alleged that complaints were received by Government of illegalities in distribution of grants under the Scheme, during Financial - Appellant had also made such complaints – Held, There was no reason for the complainants who lodged the FIRs to get terrorized by the alleged threats, allegedly meted out by Appellant, for if those complainants had not indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear - Even otherwise, threat to lodge a complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of externment under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, more so, when the responses of government authorities to queries raised by Appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance - Person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in country or to move freely throughout country, on flimsy grounds - Appellants inquiry had been started by concerned authorities against government officials and educational institutions including the complainants, who lodged FIRs against Appellant, impugned externment order which followed, cannot be sustained - Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends the criminal cases and externment order are retaliatory counterblasts to whistleblowing; State argues the order is based on objective satisfaction regarding public safety. (Para 19 )
3. The court found the criminal complaints vindictive and retaliatory, aimed at stifling the appellant's voice after he exposed misappropriation of public funds. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Drastic externment powers must be used only for lawless elements and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mala fide as a retaliatory measure. (Para 28 , 29 , 33 , 34 )
5. When is an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act justified?
Externment is justified in exceptional cases to maintain law and order or prevent breach of public tranquility, specifically targeting lawless elements who cannot be brought to book via judicial trials because witnesses are unwilling to depose in public due to fear of retribution. (Para 28 , 31 , 33 , 34 )
6. What is the standard of judicial review for the authority's satisfaction in externment proceedings?
The court will not interfere if the satisfaction is objective and based on the record. However, it will interfere if the satisfaction is demonstrably perverse, based on no evidence, based on misleading evidence, or if no reasonable person could have been satisfied of the necessity of the order. (Para 29 )
7. Can an externment order be set aside if the underlying criminal cases are found to be retaliatory?
Yes. If the externment order is an outcome of vindictive and retaliatory complaints aimed at stifling a whistleblower's voice, it is considered arbitrary, mala fide, and unsustainable in law. (Para 34 , 35 )
8. To what extent must the externing authority disclose material allegations in a show-cause notice?
The authority is only obligated to inform the proposed externee of the general nature of the material allegations. Full disclosure of specific particulars is not required, as it would frustrate the purpose of the proceeding by revealing the identity of fearful witnesses. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 490 of 2018 filed by the Appellant, challenging an order of Externment dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, whereby the Appellant has been directed not to enter or return to Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for a period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of Amravati City and/or Amravati Rural District.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned Externment Order are extracted hereinbelow for convenience:
“Whereas as per the Order under section 10(2) of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT (Mumbai 22 of 1951) the Govt. of Maharashtra by Order No. Maharashtra Ordinance No.9/94 dt.24th June, 1994 has directed that, Deputy Commission of Police (Zonal) Amravati will implement the power, work and duties conferred upon him under section 56 of the said Act.
Whereas against Rahematakhan @ Rammu Bismillakhan, age 48 years, R/o Chaman Chhaoni, University Road, Amravati the proof of following nature has been submitted before me.
1. Since 2017 due to his act and movement fear has been created in the locality under Police Station, Nagpurigate and Kotwali and to the property of people residing in the nearby surroundings and un-safety has been created in their mind. In future, also there is every possibility of creation of un-safety.
(a) The said person by accompanying with his companions is engaged in serious offence like threatening to kill by abusing and demanding ransom to the people residing in area specified above.
Offence registered against aforesaid person.
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Crime No. | Sections | Date | Settlement |
| 1 | Nagpurigate | 344/2017 | 384, 452, 294, 506(B), 34 IPC | 12/10/2017 | Under Police Investigation |
| 2 | Nagpurigate | 352/2017 | 384,448,294, 504, 506(B), 34 IPC | 23/10/2017 | Under Police Investigation |
| 3 | Kotwali | 501/2017 | 384 IPC | 13/10/2017 | Under Police Investigation |
Prohibitory Action
| Sr. No. | P.S. | Iste. No. & Section | Date of Registration |
| 1 | Nagpurigate | 53/17 under section 110(e) (g) Cr.P.C. | 04/12/2017 |
In this way he is liable to be punished as per Chapter 17 of the I.P.C.
(b)The aforesaid person accompanying with his companions is engaged in serious offence like threatening to kill by abusing and demanding ransom to the people residing in area specified above.
2. He has committed activities of the nature as mentioned in paragraph No.1 sub-para No.A and B, so also has committed several activities of the nature mentioned in the show cause notice….”
4. On or about 11th October, 2013, the Government of Maharashtra introduced a scheme called “Dr. Zakir Hussain Madrasa Adhunikikaran Yojana” hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for the upliftment of the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children.
5. As per the Scheme, the Madrasas registered with the office of Charity Commissioner or Waqf Board which had completed three years were to be given priority for allotment of funds for basic amenities, remuneration of teachers, scholarship of students, etc.
6. Pursuant to a Government Resolution dated 20th March 2015, the State of Maharashtra announced the disbursement of grants totaling a sum of Rs.1,35,70,000/- to 33 Madrasa of Amravati District for the Financial Year 2014-2015.
7. The Appellant claims to be a religious minded journalist and social worker, who has been fighting against corruption and misuse of public funds. The Appellant used to publish the newspaper “kalam Ki Takat” till 2009.
8. According to the Appellant, his daughter was studying in a Madrasa in Amravati District in Maharashtra. At that time, the Appellant came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including misappropriation of p
