IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Giddappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8182 of 2023 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 21-04-2023
EXTERNMENT - Challenging an order of externment - Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Sec. 78(3)) - [Sec. 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963] - The court discussed the provisions under Ss. 55 to 60 of the Act and emphasized that an order of externment can be passed only if the person is engaged or about to engage in the commission of a crime or an offence punishable under chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC. The court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA(2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) and held that the order of externment would lose its legal legs to stand as none of the offences alleged could become an ingredient for passage of the order of externment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of externment passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagara, externing the petitioner for a period of six months from Sagara to Kalaburagi district based on 11 criminal cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences alleged against the petitioner did not meet the criteria for externment as they were not under chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC, and the order of externment infringed the fundamental right of free movement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order of externment and the infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness and should be based on objective material, and the order in question did not meet these criteria.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of externment was quashed, and the petitioner was declared entitled to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 7/3/2023, passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagara, externing the petitioner for a period of six months commencing from 7/3/2023 to 7/9/2023 from Sagara Sub-Division and sent him to Kalaburagi District.
2. Heard Sri Vishwajith Rai M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in several offences, totaling 11 cases. The first one is, in crime No.36/2011 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (the Act for short); second in crime No.89/2011 for offences punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act read with Sec. 420 of the IPC; third in crime No.21/2012 again for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; fourth in crime No.23/2013 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; fifth in crime No.106/2014 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; sixth in crime No.92/2015 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; seventh one is, in crime No.92/2015 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; eighth one is, crime No.14/2020 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; ninth is, crime No.114/2022 for offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act; tenth is, crime No.20/2021 in terms of Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C.; eleventh is, crime No.19/2022 in terms of Sec. 107 of Cr.P.C.
4. The aforesaid criminal cases are the foundation for the second respondent for passage of the order of externment, externing the petitioner for a period of six months from Sagara to Kalaburagi district. It is this order, that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. It is germane to notice the provision under which an order of externment can be passed against a citizen by respondent No.2 Assistant Commissioner and they are under Ss. 55 to 60 of the Act and they read as follows:
"55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.-Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this Sec., to the District Magistrate, or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, -
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself.
56. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.-If a person has been convicted at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act, -
(a)
The order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness and should be based on objective material, and the court can interfere when there is no material or the relevant material has not been co....
An externment order under the Karnataka Police Act must be supported by objective evidence and a clear demonstration of the necessity for such action, particularly in light of the fundamental right t....
An order of externment must be based on subjective satisfaction supported by objective material and must meet the test of reasonableness as per Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.
Externment orders must be supported by objective evidence and must not violate the fundamental right to free movement; failure to comply with these requirements renders such orders invalid.
Section 54 deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons which is applicable to case at hand.
Externment orders must be based on objective evidence of current danger or harm, and must comply with procedural safeguards to ensure the protection of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) of th....
Order of externment is an extraordinary measure – As in case of any other administrative order, judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
The court highlighted the importance of objective material for recording subjective satisfaction to pass an order of externment, the need for compliance with principles of natural justice, and the ne....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.