Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CJ., VINAY SARAF, J.
Tushar @ Nandi @ Anand - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2025
Decided On : 13-11-2025
(1) Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (M.P.) -- Ss. 3(1), 5(a) and 5(b) -- no incident of causing any danger to any person or property in close proximity of order mentioned in impugned order -- sufficient material not available on record to show that there was any immediate engagement of offender in commission of offence -- held -- no order could be passed against appellant -- passing of order in mechanical manner is condemnable as externment order casts serious restrictions on fundamental rights and personal liberty. [Para 11]
(2) Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (M.P.) -- Ss. 3(1), 5(a) and 5(b) -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 19 and 21 -- in list of offences, except one crime, no other case registered for heinous offence -- witnesses of State did not support police case -- no material on record to hold that presence of appellant was undesirable, and externment of appellant was essential for maintenance of law and order -- alleged offence should have close proximity to order of externment and there should be specific finding that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against proposed externee in criminal trials -- these grounds not made out -- order passed without considering that prayer for order of externment was against one Golu and show cause notice was issued on 19.4.2024 whereas externment order was passed on 21.11.2024 -- not considered by writ Court that during this long period of 7-8 months, no offence was registered against appellant -- conclusion of District Magistrate not based on cogent material -- order for restraining could not be passed under Act, as exercise of such power casts serious restrictions on fundamental rights granted under Arts. 19 and 21 of Constitution -- Superintendent of Police forwarded application without applying his mind and District Magistrate also passed order without application of mind, which does not satisfy requirement of S. 5 of Act -- order of externment set aside. 2009 (4) MPLJ 263 relied on. (2018) 3 MPLJ 413 and 2024 SCC Online MP 7426 referred to. [Paras 12, 14 & 15]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- M. P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 -- S. 10 -- applicability of restriction u/s. 10 of Act to power of High Court -- held -- writ Court has jurisdiction under Art. 226 to examine legality and validity of order passed under the Act as the same adversely affects fundamental right of personal liberty of externe. [Para 14]
¼1½ jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 3¼1½] 5¼d½ rFkk 5¼[k½ & vkns'k ds cgqr vklikl fdlh O;fä ;k laifÙk dks [krjk dkfjr djus dh fdlh ?kVuk dk vkf{kIr vkns'k esa mYys[k ugha & ;g n'kkZus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij i;kZIr lkexzh miyC/k ugha fd vijk/kh gky gh esa dksbZ vijk/k djus esa fyIr Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & ;a=or~ jhfr esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk fuanuh; gS D;ksafd fuokZlu vkns'k ls ewy vf/kdkjksa vkSj O;fäxr LokraR;Z ij xaHkhj fuca/ku yxrs gSaA ¼iSjk 11½
¼2½ jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 3¼1½] 5¼d½ rFkk 5¼[k½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 19 rFkk 21 & vijk/kksa dh lwph esa ,d vijk/k ds vykok vU; dksbZ Hkh ekeyk t?kU; vijk/k ds fy, iath—r ugha & jkT; ds lkf{k;ksa us iqfyl ds i{kdFku dk leFkZu ugha fd;k & ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dksbZ lkexzh ugha fd vihykFkhZ dh mifLFkfr vokaNuh; Fkh] vkSj fof/k&OoLFkk cuk, j[kus ds fy, vihykFkhZ dk fuokZlu vfuok;Z Fkk & vfHkdfFkr vijk/k fuokZlu ds vkns'k ds cgqr vklikl dk gksuk pkfg, rFkk fofufnZ"V fu"d"kZ gksuk pkfg, fd nkafMd fopkj.kksa esa lk{khx.k çLrkfor fuokZflrh ds fo:) lk{; nsus ds fy, vkxs ugha vk jgs & ;g vk/kkj fl) ugha & vkns'k bl ij fopkj fd, fcuk ikfjr fd fuokZlu ds vkns'k dh çkFkZuk fdlh xksyw ds fo:) dh xbZ Fkh rFkk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk 19-4-2024 dks tkjh dh xbZ Fkh tcfd fuokZlu vkns'k 21-11-2024 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k & fjV U;k;ky; }kjk bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k fd 7&8 ekl dh bl yach vof/k ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k iathÑr ugha gqvk & ftyk eftLVªsV dk fu"d"kZ rdZiw.kZ lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr ugha & vfèkfu;e ds v/khu fuca/ku dk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk D;ksafd bl 'kfä ds ç;ksx ls Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 19 rFkk 21 ds v/khu çnku fd, x, ewy vf/kdkjksa ij xaHkhj fucaZ/ku yxrs gSa & iqfyl v/kh{kd us euksfu;ksx fd, fcuk vkosnu vxzsf"kr dj fn;k rFkk ftyk eftLVªsV us Hkh euksfu;ksx ds fcuk vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k] ftlls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 dh vis{kk dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh fuokZlu dk vkns'k vikLrA 2009 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 263 voyafcrA ¼2018½ 3 ,eih,yts 413 rFkk 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 7426 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12] 14 ,oa 15½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226@227 & eŒçŒ jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 & /kkjk 10 & mPp U;k;ky; dh 'kfä ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fuca/ku ykxw gksuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fjV U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ikfjr vkns'k dh oS/krk vkSj fof/kekU;rk ij[kus dh vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk gS D;ksafd mlls fuokZflrh ds O;fäxr Lokra=~; ds ewy vf/kdkj ij çfrdwy çHkko iM+rk gSA ¼iSjk 14½
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to externment order based on past criminal records. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for the necessity of strong evidence in passing external restrictions. (Para 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. requirement of substantial evidence for externment. (Para 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. court's final decision quashing the externment order. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
Vinay Saraf, J.
1. By the present intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8689/2025; whereby the petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Betul on 21.11.2024, affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Narsinghpur on 18.02.2025 was upheld.
2. With the consent of the parties, arguments were heard for the purpose of final disposal of the case as the period of impugned order is expiring on20.11.2025.
3. The short facts of the case are that Superintendent of Police, District Betul by application dated 22.03.2024 made a recommendation to the District Magistrate, District Betul for externment of the appellant under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1990") on the ground that as many as 12 cases were registered against the appellant in the past and due to the danger or fear in the mind of the public, the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the appellant. The prayer was made to pass an order of externment against the appellant under section 5(a) & (b) of the Act, 1990. After receipt of the recommendation from the Superintendent of Police, Betul, on 22.03.2024 District Magistrate issued show cause notice under section 8(1) of the Act, 1990 to the appellant and after affording the opportunity of hearing and recording the statement of the witnesses, passed the impugned order of externment on 21.11.2024, whereby the appellant was directed to remove himself outside the District of Betul and nearby Districts Chhindwara, Narmadapuram, Khandwa and Harda for a period of one year from the date of order and not to enter or return to the said districts or such area within the said period and to provide sufficient information regarding his presence outside of such areas.
4. Said order was challenged by the appellant in appeal under section 9 of the Act, 1990 before Divisional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, which was dismissed by order dated 18.02.2025. Order passed by the District Magistrate, Betul dated 21.11.2024 and Divisional Commissioner, Narmadapuram dated 18.02.2025 were challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.8689/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 02.04.2024 and assailing the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned was passed by the District Magistrate, Betul without application of mind. In most of the cases, the appellant was already acquitted and the criminal cases registered against the appellant after 2021 were of trivial nature and are not considerable for the purpose of passing the order of externment. He further submits that in the recommendation letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Betul dated 22.03.2024 in the last para, the request was made to pass an order against one Golu S/o Prabhakar Solanki and without considering the same, order has been passed against the present appellant. He further submits that there was no apprehension of causing any danger to the public life or property, which reflects from the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Betul recommended to the District Magistrate on 22.03.2024 but the order was passed after a period of 8 months on 21.11.2024; meaning thereby there was no such urgency to pass any prohibitory order and during this period no criminal case was registered or no criminal incident was reported. He further submits that the appellant is not indulging in any criminal activity and the report submitted
An externment order requires strict adherence to statutory criteria, demonstrating immediate danger or threat to public safety, which must be supported by adequate evidence.
The court ruled that externment orders require substantial evidence and must not infringe on fundamental rights without clear justification.
The legal principle established is that for an externment order to be valid, the person's engagement in criminal activities must have close proximity to the date of the order, and witnesses must be u....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders must satisfy the requirements of close proximity to the offense, objective consideration, and satisfaction of the District M....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely and effective preventive action under Section 5(a)(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, and the strict conditions th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely and effective preventive action in externment proceedings, as well as the conditions that must be satisfied for an order o....
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
