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.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner aged 68 years is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question an order dtd. 6/4/2023, by which the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner has externed the petitioner for a period of one year from the date of the order i.e., 6/4/2023, from Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and sent him to Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, invoking Sec. 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The name of the petitioner is drawn into the list of rowdies on 12/4/2002 and claims to be still in the list. The petitioner gets embroiled in certain crimes, all of which are non-cognizable offences punishable under Sec. 78(4) and (6) of the Act and out of them, two are under Sec. 78(3) of the Act. The six criminal cases are, crime Nos.66/2009, 06/2010, 105/2010, 85/2012, 50/2009 and 103/2011. The petitioner avers that all the cases were under the Act and all have been closed by the competent Courts by imposition of fine. Notwithstanding the aforesaid closure of cases, an order of externment is passed against the petitioner on 6/4/2023, making those crimes as the foundation for passage of the order. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

5. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and require no reiteration. Apart from the aforesaid facts, what merits immediate consideration of the case at hand is that, the petitioner is suffering from cancer of the esophagus and is undergoing chemotherapy. The petitioner has produced scan report and discharge summary to indicate that he is undergoing chemotherapy. The second respondent has failed to consider this aspect of the matter atleast before passing a bald and laconic order curtailing the fundamental right of the petitioner. The order runs counter to the very provisions of the Act, defies logic.

6. The Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99. in the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:

"6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, there is a fundamental right conferred on the citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India. In view of clause (5) of Article 19, State is empowered to make a law enabling the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by clause (d). An order of externment passed under provisions of Sec. 56 of the 1951 Act imposes a restraint on the person against whom the order is made from entering a particular area. Thus, such orders infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d). Hence, the restriction imposed by passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness.

7. Sec. 56 of the 1951 Act reads thus:

"56. Removal of persons about to commit offence- (1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay 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 State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Sec., to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State 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 Penal Code, 1860, or in the abetment of