Externment orders cannot be passed against a citizen merely for exercising democratic rights or organizing political protests, as such measures cannot be based on minor offences like Section 188 IPC and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of free speech and movement.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai in Externment Order No. 472/C/43 as also the Order dated 27th March 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025.

3. It is the submission of Ms. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is belonging to the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), which is registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as a political party. The Petitioner is the Secretary of the SDPI. She submits that all FIR which have been mentioned in the impugned Orders are mainly under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). She submits that certain decisions of the Government of India were opposed by the Petitioner and his political party being Social Democratic Party of India and, therefore, agitations/morchas/dharnas were arranged. She submits that therefore the impugned Orders of Externment passed under Sub-Section 1(a) and 1(b) of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act have been passed without any subjective satisfaction and without any basis for the same. It is further submitted that the action taken is mala fide action. She also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India ¹(2020) 3 SCC 637 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat ²R/Special Criminal Application No.8894 of 2020, decided on 26th August 2021

4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, points out the detailed contentions raised in the Afodavit dated 30th June 2026 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police as also reasons given in the impugned Orders. She points out certain slogans given by the Petitioner and other Protesters. She submits that the morchas/dharnas/agitations were held although permission was refused by the Police Authorities. She submits that therefore action taken is in accordance with law.

5. It is an admitted position that, the Petitioner in his capacity as the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India, has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas with respect to the certain decisions taken by the Government of India. The action is taken under Section 56 1(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Relevant portion of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act reads as under:

“56. Removal of persons about to commit offence.—
[(1)] Whenever it shall appear in [Brihan Mumbai] and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Ofocial Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, 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 Indian Penal Code (XLV