Back
Quashes Externment Against Vijay Kumar Rajpoot for Violating
In a significant ruling on , the on quashed an passed against Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju, holding that the order was vitiated by a and a . A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also sharply criticised the for relegating the appellant to an instead of examining the palpable illegality on the face of the record.
The Court declared that the under , could not survive because the passed it without affording any notice or hearing to Rajpoot, who was in judicial custody at the time. It further held that the had no power to review or recall his own earlier closure order.
From Closure to Controversy: The Road to Externment
The case traces back to a memorandum submitted by the , in , recommending externment proceedings against Rajpoot based on his alleged involvement in ten criminal cases registered between and . After years of proceedings, the closed the case on , noting that the appellant had been acquitted in those cases and no fresh police report had been submitted after . Rajpoot was let off with a warning to refrain from criminal activities.
However, two subsequent developments revived the controversy. First, an FIR under the was registered in over alleged unauthorised colony development. Second, in , an FIR was registered alleging that Rajpoot had recorded and circulated a video containing abusive remarks against Baba Guru Ghasidas , a revered figure of the Satnami community. This led to a fresh police report, and on , the recalled his closure order and passed an directing Rajpoot to remove himself from Raigarh and contiguous districts for one year—all without any notice to the appellant, who was then lodged in the district jail.
Violation of Mandatory Safeguards
The zeroed in on the glaring procedural lapse. The bench emphasised that mandates that before any is passed, the proposed externee must be informed of the material allegations and given a reasonable opportunity to tender an explanation. The Court noted:
“The object of the provision is to ensure that a person, against whom an is proposed, is made aware of the material allegations against him and afforded an effective opportunity to tender his explanation thereto. It necessarily follows that an order passed in derogation of these mandatory requirements would stand vitiated and liable to be declared .”
The only exceptions for an proceeding are when the person fails to execute a security bond or fails to appear—conditions that were manifestly absent. Since Rajpoot was in custody and had no opportunity to participate, the order was void from its inception.
No Power to Review a Closed Case
The Court further held that the exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. The closure order of , was final, and the Adhiniyam does not contain any express or implied power of review. The bench observed:
“It is settled law that an administrative authority enjoys no power to review his earlier order, unless the statute empowers him to do so.”
Even if the appellant breached the warning, that alone could not clothe the with authority to reopen the closed matter. The Court clarified that a fresh report would require a fresh initiation of proceedings with full compliance of Section 8.
High Court's Abdication of Duty
The took strong exception to the 's decision to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that an alternative appeal remedy under was available. The bench observed that when an order suffers from egregious violations of and lacks jurisdiction, the High Court must intervene:
“This happens to be one such case where the High Court grossly erred in not entertaining the writ petition of the appellant. Relegation of the appellant to the under is plainly demonstrative of an abject failure to exercise a jurisdiction vested in the High Court.”
Externment Cannot Be Based on Mere Pendency of Cases
The Court also examined the merits and found the substantively flawed. Referring to , it noted that the offences alleged against Rajpoot did not involve force or violence or fall under the specified chapters of the IPC. Even under , which has wider amplitude, the order failed to disclose any connecting the conduct to a real threat of alarm, danger, or harm. The bench stressed:
“An order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen and, therefore, cannot be made as a matter of routine or on mere . Further, merely because multiple criminal cases have been registered against a person would not, , be a ground for ordering externment.”
Relying on its earlier decision in , the Court held that the existence of and a between the material and the conclusion is indispensable. The impugned order merely cited "resentment and public outrage" without any supporting material or reasoning, making it arbitrary.
The Final Verdict
The allowed the appeal, quashing both the impugned and the High Court's order. Rajpoot is now free to enter all districts from which he was barred. The Court clarified that none of its observations would affect the merits of pending criminal cases against him.
The judgment reinforces that preventive measures like externment cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass the of notice and hearing. As the bench concluded, the order was “infirm and indefensible and cannot be sustained for want of any in support thereof.”
