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.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 28/3/2023, passed by the first respondent -SubDivisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madikeri, Kodagu district, externing the petitioner for a period of three months from the date of the order i.e., 28/3/2023, from Kodagu district and sent him to Chikkaballapur District, except permitting him to vote in the elections.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. What is called in question in the case at hand is an order of externment passed against the petitioner. Preceding the order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24/1/2023, seeking the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be passed. The averment in the petition is that, the petitioner appeared before the authority, who only pointed out all the cases, which have ended in acquittal. Except stating about the pending cases, no other opportunity worth the name was provided to the petitioner, is the averment in the entire petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the pleading contending that the order of externment dtd. 28/3/2023, which observes that there are seven cases pending against the petitioner. All the seven cases have been closed or ended in acquittal and no case is pending against the petitioner. The order of externment is passed without looking into any material and it is his submission that no opportunity was granted to submit to defend himself before the Authority. He would seek reconsideration of the order in the light of the aforesaid facts.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate would refute the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, to contend that the order of externment is required to be passed in the light of the cases which were registered against the petitioner and would seek dismissal of the petition.

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

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and require no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The show cause notice indicates that in terms of the report. there are seven cases pending against the petitioner, one of the cases is ended in compromise and six of them have ended in acquittal and no case is pending against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, Ss. 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are pressed into service for passing an order of externment. The report that leads to passage of the order would indicate that all the cases pending against the petitioner have been closed. If that be so, the order of externment is passed based on thin air and not on any material. The effect of order of externment and what should be the foundation for passage of such order is considered by the Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99. 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 Greate