Back
Externment Primarily For Opposing Government Decisions Violates :
In a significant ruling protecting the democratic right to , the has quashed an initiated against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a political activist and general secretary of the . Justice Madhav J. Jamdar set aside the orders, emphasizing that the state cannot treat disagreement with government policies as a valid ground for banishing citizens from their own cities.
The Background of the Dispute The petitioner, Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, found himself in legal crosshairs after the issued an on , effectively banning him from Mumbai city and suburban areas for one year. This decision was later upheld by the Divisional Commissioner of the on .
The state’s action was predicated on five FIRs registered between and , largely relating to the appellant's participation in protests and dharnas regarding issues such as the , the , and other government policy decisions. Most of the charges were registered under , which pertains to the disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.
Arguments from the Bench and the Bar Counsel for the petitioner argued that the externment action was , noting that the petitioner is a registered politician whose movements were being unfairly curtailed. They contended that protesting government policies cannot be equated with the "alarm, danger or harm" contemplated under Section 56 of the .
Conversely, the state defended the order, pointing to the slogans raised by the petitioner—such as " Government Murdabad" and "Amit Shah Murdabad"—and the fact that several protests were held without formal police permission. The state argued that such repeated unauthorized assembly justified the extrordianry measure of externment.
Legal Analysis: The Threshold for Externment Justice Madhav J. Jamdar conducted a sharp analysis of the , noting that for an order under to be valid, there must be material evidence showing that a person’s presence is causing actual harm or danger to person or property. The Court held that simply arranging rallies or voicing political opposition does not meet this high legal threshold.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in and a relevant judgment from the in , Justice Jamdar reinforced that the power under the is an "extraordinary measure" that should not be used to suppress legitimate democratic expressions.
Key Observations The judgment features several critical observations regarding the role of police and the rights of citizens:
-
"There is no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the Petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property."
-
"The action taken by the Respondent–State of Maharashtra of externing the Petitioner, merely for opposing certain decisions of the , affects the Petitioner's fundamental right of and also ."
-
"The power under [the relevant section] cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any ."
-
"As per the not only citizens have the freedom to express their opinion but also to live with dignity."
Implications of the Verdict By setting aside the externment orders, the has sent a stern message to the executive branch. The Court reminded authorities that they are public servants answerable to the citizens at large, not instrumentalities meant to silence political on behalf of the government. This ruling clarifies that police authorities cannot invoke statutes to circumvent the to free speech and dignity, effectively curbing the potential for future misuse of externment powers against political activists in the state.
