1. Challenge to ex parte externment order under Sections 5, 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1045
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.
Vijay Kumar Rajpoot Alias Vijju – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4083 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12330 of 2026]
Decided On ; 31-08-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Externment – Order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen and cannot be made as a matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit.
(2) Existence of objective material and discernible nexus between such material and conclusion reached are indispensable safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.
(3) Administrative authority enjoys no power to review his earlier order, unless statute empowers him to do so.
(1) Externment – Order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen and cannot be made as a matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit.
(2) Existence of objective material and discernible nexus between such material and conclusion reached are indispensable safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.
(3) Administrative authority enjoys no power to review his earlier order, unless statute empowers him to do so.
Subject
Criminal Law - Externment / Preventive Detention
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.296, S.299, S.3(5), S.302, S.352
CHHATTISGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.292
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA SURAKSHA ADHINIYAM: S.5(a), S.9
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(d), Art.226
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.295(a), S.298, S.34, S.504
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT: S.3(1)(v)
CHHATTISGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.292
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA SURAKSHA ADHINIYAM: S.5(a), S.9
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(d), Art.226
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.295(a), S.298, S.34, S.504
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT: S.3(1)(v)
Headnote
Criminal Law – Externment – Order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen and cannot be made as a matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit – Merely because multiple criminal cases have been registered against a person would not, ipso facto, be a ground for ordering externment – Before exercising such power, District Magistrate is required to arrive at a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction that circumstances of case warrant such extreme measure and that externment is necessary to prevent apprehended mischief – Order must disclose, in broad terms, reasons which persuaded it to arrive at such satisfaction – Existence of objective material and discernible nexus between such material and conclusion reached are indispensable safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power – Administrative authority enjoys no power to review his earlier order, unless statute empowers him to do so – Impugned externment order falls short of statutory requirement – Appellant was neither served with notice nor afforded opportunity to tender his explanation before order came to be passed – Impugned externment order is infirm and indefensible and cannot be sustained – Impugned order of High Court as well as externment order is liable to be quashed. [Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 – Sections 5, 8 and 9] (Paras 25, 31, 32, 34 and 36)
Facts of the case:
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd January, 20262, has spurned appellant’s challenge in a writ petition to an order of externment and, while dismissing such petition, relegated him to alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Sole substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether impugned externment order passed by the third respondent is legal and valid, and also as to whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
None of observations here shall be treated as findings on the merits of the pending case(s) in which the appellant figures as an accused.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Ms. Ishita Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Ms. Ishita Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: breach of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. Respondent: alternative remedy under Section 9; order was continuation. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. High Court order and externment order quashed; appellant free to enter districts; appeal allowed. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Is a notice and opportunity of hearing mandatory before passing an externment order under the Adhiniyam?
Yes, Section 8 mandates notice and reasonable opportunity; non-compliance renders the order void ab initio. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Can a District Magistrate review or recall his own closure order to reopen externment proceedings?
No, an administrative authority lacks inherent power to review unless statute expressly confers it; such action is without jurisdiction. (Para 25 )
6. What conditions must be satisfied for invoking Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam?
The person must be engaged in offences involving force or violence or offences under specified IPC Chapters; mere registration of other offences is insufficient. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )
7. Under Section 5(a) of the Adhiniyam, what must an externment order disclose?
The order must disclose reasons and a discernible nexus between objective material and the subjective satisfaction; mere ipse dixit is insufficient. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
8. When can a High Court entertain a writ petition despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy?
When the impugned order suffers from egregious violations such as breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction, the alternative remedy bar need not be enforced. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur1[High Court], by the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd January, 20262[impugned order], has spurned the appellant’s challenge in a writ petition3[WPCR No. 16 of 2026] to an order of externment and, while dismissing such petition, relegated him to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 19904[Adhiniyam].
2. Appellant had approached the High Court assailing an ex parte order of externment dated 04th November, 20255[impugned externment order or said order, as per contextual requirement], passed by the District Magistrate, Raigarh6[third respondent], whereby the appellant was directed to remove himself from the territorial limits of Raigarh district and contiguous districts for a period of one year.
3. The genesis of the impugned externment order lies in a memorandum7[No. Pu.A./Raig./Reader-1/Jila Badar/04/19] dated 03rd April, 2019, submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh8[fourth respondent], to the third respondent, recommending initiation of proceedings against the appellant to extern him under Sections 5(a) and (b) of the Adhiniyam. This was premised on the appellant’s alleged involvement in ten criminal cases registered between the years 2009 and 2019. Acting on it, the third respondent by an order dated 3rd May, 2019 registered a case9[Criminal Case No. 03/2019] for externment of the appellant.
4. An order dated 06th October, 202510[closure order] followed, whereby the case came to be closed by the third respondent. Recording that the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal cases referred to by the fourth respondent in the memorandum; that, no fresh police report had been submitted against him after the year 2019; and that, in the circumstances, initiation of externment based on the criminal cases registered between 2009 and 2019 was not justified, the third respondent closed the case by letting off the appellant with a warning to refrain from indulging in criminal activities in future.
5. Pertinently, two subsequent developments intervened, reigniting the controversy. First, an FIR bearing Crime No. 117/2023 was registered against the appellant and others under Sections 292 and 292-C(2) and (3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, in connection with the alleged unauthorised development of a colony on land admeasuring 2.13 acres at Boirdadar, Raigarh. Secondly, on 30th October, 2025, an FIR bearing Crime No. 483/2025 came to be registered against the appellant at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar under Sections 296, 299, 302, 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202311[BNS] [corresponding to Sections 294, 295A, 298, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), respectively] and Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 198912[SC/ST Act], on the allegation that he had recorded and circulated on social media a video containing abusive remarks against Baba Guru Ghasidas, a revered figure of the Satnami community. Appellant was arrested the same day and lodged in the District Jail, Raigarh.
6. Consequently, the fourth respondent submitted a fresh report dated 03rd November, 202513[No. Pu.A./Raig./Reader-1/Jila Badar/04/2025] to the third respondent, bringing to his notice the aforesaid developments and seeking reconsideration of the closure order. Acting upon the fresh report, the third respondent recalled the order dated 06th October, 2025, and vide the impugned externment order recorded as follows:
“On the basis of the aforesaid report dated 03-11-2025 of the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, upon reconsideration of the case, it is found that the non-applicant has clearly violated the order dated 06-10-2025 of this Court by committing the aforesaid criminal acts. Due to the said criminal acts of the non-applicant, there is resentment among the Satnami community, and there is public outrage among mem
