SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri. Malikjan @ Sahil, S/O. Hazarat Ali Kaladgi - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of Home – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 109463 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. P. G. Chikkanaragund, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri.T. Hanumareddy, Aga

Externment orders require general disclosure of allegations without complete document provision, upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Externment order against petitioner for involvement in crimes - High Court addressed the necessity of providing police documents to the externee - Emphasized that principles of natural justice must be upheld, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to respond to accusations. (Paras 10.1 to 10.21)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Court found that notice was issued, hearing was provided, and a reasoned order was passed, thus fulfilling the requirements. (Paras 12.1)

(C) Judicial Review - The Court reaffirmed that externment orders impact rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, allowing for judicial scrutiny of procedural compliance. (Paras 13.2, 13.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order issued under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, alleging violation of principles of natural justice due to a lack of document disclosure.

Findings of Court:
The order was set aside due to insufficient clarity on the justification under which provision it was issued, with directions for the authority to clarify this in a new order.

Issues: Whether all reports must be disclosed to the person proposed for externment, and if the Assistant Commissioner is required to indicate witness willingness in externment orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that only the general nature of allegations must be provided, maintaining that excessive disclosure would compromise investigations. Results: Writ petition partly allowed, order of externment set aside, and remitted for a fresh decision delineating applicable provisions.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

b. To issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy representing respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The 4th respondent-Police Inspector files an application seeking an order of externment against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner is embroiled in several crimes. Thereafter, based on the report made by respondent No.4, the impugned order is passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on 22.11.2025 under Section 55 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963, exiling the petitioner from Dharwad to Sankeshwar for a period of 6 months. The petitioner is now before this Court calling in question the order of externment dated 22.11.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.30021/2025, disposed off on 17th November 2025, wherein it is held as follows:

8. The points that would arise for consideration are;

1. Whether all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet, etc., are required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed?

2. Whether there is a requirement in all cases for the Assistant Commissioner to consider and State as to whether witnesses have not come forward or would not come forward to depose against the person who is sought to be externed, if he continues to reside within the jurisdiction?

3. Whether the principles of natural Justice have been followed in the present case?

4. Is there any infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to intercede?

5. What order?

9. I answer the above points as follows;

10. Answer to point No.1: Whether all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet, etc., are required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed?

10.1. The submission of Sri.Tharanath Poojary., learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, is that without the reports and documents being furnished along with the show-cause notice, the Petitioner as the addressee of the notice, would not know what to reply to. The principle of natural Justice would stand completely violated if they are not furnished.

10.2. After the appearance of the Petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, two additional cases were filed. Though a request had been made for furnishing the same, copies were not furnished. On that ground, he submits that the rights of the Petitioner have been adversely affected.

10.3. In that regard, he has relied upon the decision in Sachin M.R’s case and contends that if all documents are not furnished, and there is no acknowledgement of such service on the externee, then the order for the externment would be required to be set aside.

10.4. A persusal of said judgment in Sachin's case does not indicate that it is so inasmuch as that decision was one relating to service of notice and not service of documents, and it is in the background of the show-cause notice not having been issued, that the above observations were made.

10.5. In the present case, the issue raised by the Petitioner is as regards service of documents and not that of service of notice, notice having been received and acknowledged by the Petitioner to have been so received, and sunsequently having been represented by legal counsel in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

10.6. Learned Advocate General would submit that under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, all the documents and details are not required to be furnished; only material allegations are required to be made known to the person sought to be externed. The show-cause notice detailing the allegations against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was well aware of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top