Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sachin M.R., S/o. Ramachandra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9727 of 2024 (GM-POLICE)
Decided on : 05-04-2024
externment - Fundamental Right Violation - Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 55, 56, 57 - The court discussed the legal framework under which orders of externment could be passed against any person, highlighting the provisions of Sections 55 to 60 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of granting a reasonable opportunity to the person against whom an order of externment would be passed, as mandated by Section 58. The judgment also referenced the interpretation of similar provisions in the Maharashtra Police Act by the Apex Court, emphasizing that externment is an extraordinary measure and must stand the test of reasonableness as per Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The court admonished the 2nd respondent for ignoring procedural safeguards and orders passed by the Apex Court and the High Court, and directed the Chief Secretary of the State to issue a circular for appropriate passage of externment orders to prevent abuse of office and contempt of court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Mallahalli Village, Mysore District, was externed from Mysore to Davangere under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The petitioner had pending cases against him, and the show cause notice issued to him did not append the report against him, as mandated by law. The order of externment was passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating the provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 2nd respondent blatantly ignored the rigour of the statute and violated the fundamental right of the petitioner. The court emphasized that an order of externment takes away the fundamental right of a citizen and must stand the test of reasonableness. The court also admonished the 2nd respondent for treating the petitioner's personal liberty in a cavalier manner and ignoring procedural safeguards and court orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the violation of the legal framework under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, specifically the failure to grant a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order of externment and the disregard of procedural safeguards and court orders by the 2nd respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and the Apex Court's interpretation of similar provisions in the Maharashtra Police Act. The court emphasized the importance of granting a reasonable opportunity to the person against whom an order of externment would be passed, as mandated by Section 58 of the Act, and the need for externment orders to stand the test of reasonableness as per Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order of externment was quashed. The State was reserved the liberty to take action in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. The Chief Secretary of the State was directed to issue a circular for appropriate passage of externment orders within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and report such compliance to the Registry of the Court.
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate invoking his power under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short) externing the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere with effect from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024.
2. Heard Mr.K.V.Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
3. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Mallahalli Village, Mysore District and claims to be doing business as his avocation and is residing with his family members. The petitioner during his stay at Mysore appears to have got embroiled in several cases. The cases pending against the petitioner as on today is depicted to be Crime No.46 of 2021 before the Varuna Police Station, Mysore for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 143, 147 and 149 of the IPC. The said case is pending investigation. The other crime is Crime No.167 of 2022 against before the same police station for the same offences except in addition of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The third crime is for the offence punishable under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. which is stayed by the learned Sessions Judge itself.
4. Things standing thus, it transpires that the 3rd respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police submits a report to the 2nd respondent recommending passage of an order under Section 55 of the Act and externing the petitioner. Based upon the said recommendation, a show cause notice comes to be issued by the 2nd respondent upon the petitioner seeking to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be passed against him and directs him to appear before him on 20.03.2024 at 11.00 a.m. Though the show cause notice depicts the dated as 20.02.2023, it appears to be a typographical error, as it is signed by the 2nd respondent on 18.03.2024 at 12.59 p.m. Therefore, the date of appearance is taken as 20.03.2024.
5. The petitioner seeks to appear before him on 20.03.2024 only to receive an order of externment externing the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024. It is this order that had driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition having filed the same on 27.03.2024. After filing of the said petition, a corrigendum comes to be issued on 28.03.2024 again moving the petitioner from Davangere to Tumkur.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the fundamental right of the petitioner is taken away completely contrary to the Act. The show cause notice so issued upon the petitioner did not append to it the report that was against him, which is mandatory in law. The petitioner was though issued a show cause notice to appear before the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2024, even before he could submit anything, the order is passed. He would contend that the provisions of the Act are completely violated in the case at hand.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that his submissions may be treated as objections to the petition. He would further submit that the facts narrated are all a matter of record. The show cause notice is issued 16.03.2024 and the order is passed on 20.03.2024. He would tacitly admit the violation of the provisions of Act and the orders passed by this Court on the issue.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. Before embarking upon consideration of the case on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the legal frame work under which order of externment could be passed against any person. Chapter-II of the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons convicted of certain offences. Section 54 deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons which is applicable to the case at hand. What is germane to be noticed is
Section 54 deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons which is applicable to case at hand.
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....
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....
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.
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 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.
Externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act must be supported by objective evidence and cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to free movement without justifiable grounds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
