The Bombay High Court has quashed a one-year externment order passed against a political activist, holding that organising or participating in peaceful protests against government policies cannot justify such an extraordinary preventive measure.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar held that the action of the Maharashtra Police was legally unsustainable and infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court passed the order on a writ petition filed by Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), challenging an externment order dated December 3, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Mumbai. The order, which was subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, directed Chaudhary to remain outside Mumbai for one year.
The externment proceedings were initiated on the basis of multiple FIRs registered between 2019 and 2024 in connection with protests organised by Chaudhary on issues including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Babri Masjid dispute and the Gyanvapi mosque controversy.
According to the petitioner, the criminal cases primarily related to allegations of organising protests without prior police permission and offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code for disobedience of orders promulgated by public servants. He contended that the externment proceedings were initiated to suppress legitimate democratic dissent and to keep him away from Mumbai during the civic elections.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that none of the offences relied upon by the police satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers authorities to extern a person only when there is material to show that such person is likely to engage in activities causing danger, alarm, harm or injury to persons or property.
The State defended the externment order by contending that the petitioner had repeatedly organised protests despite police refusing permission. It also referred to slogans allegedly raised during the demonstrations against the BJP-led Union government.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar questioned the legality of using preventive powers to curb political dissent and expressed concern over the manner in which criminal cases had been relied upon to justify the externment order.
The Court observed that citizens possess a constitutional right to oppose government decisions and peacefully protest. It further remarked that merely raising political slogans against the government or public functionaries cannot become a ground for invoking externment proceedings.
Justice Jamdar also reminded the police that they are public servants accountable to the Constitution and the law, and not functionaries serving the interests of the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister. The Court orally observed that citizens cannot be treated as slaves merely because they oppose governmental decisions.
In its judgment, the Court held that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioner’s activities caused or were likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to any person or property. It noted that the offences relied upon by the authorities were punishable with relatively minor sentences and could not justify invoking the extraordinary power of externment.
The Court described the police action as vitiated by mala fides and reiterated that an externment order is an exceptional preventive measure which substantially curtails a citizen’s fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Such powers, it held, must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements and cannot be used to suppress political expression.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court and earlier High Court precedents governing preventive action and externment, Justice Jamdar concluded that the petitioner’s opposition to certain decisions of the Union government could not constitute a valid ground for depriving him of his constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the externment order, holding that the action violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful protest and dignified life guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The post Participating in peaceful protests against government policies cannot justify externment: Bombay High Court appeared first on India Legal.