Externment Orders Severely Impinge on Fundamental Freedoms, Cannot Be Issued Mechanically: Supreme Court
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu sets aside a one-year banishment order from Chhattisgarh, clarifying that multiple criminal cases cannot form an automatic basis for externment without objective evidence.
New Delhi: In a major pronouncement upholding civil liberties against administrative overreach, the Supreme Court ruled that an order of externment directly infringes upon the cherished fundamental freedoms guaranteed to Indian citizens, reiterating that such drastic measures cannot be initiated as a routine exercise or on mere executive whim.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu quashed an externment order issued in November last year that had banished an individual from the territorial boundaries of Raigarh and its contiguous districts in Chhattisgarh for a period of one year.
Terming the administrative directive “infirm and indefensible,” the apex court observed that the order lacked sustainable cogent grounds and had been passed in total disregard of mandatory statutory procedures and the principles of natural justice.
Key Judicial Principles Laid Down by the Bench
- Strict Proof & Nexus: The presence of multiple criminal cases does not, ipso facto, establish grounds for banishment. A discernible nexus between objective material and apprehended danger is legally mandatory.
- Subjective Satisfaction: District Magistrates must arrive at an informed, bona fide subjective satisfaction demonstrating why extreme measures are necessary to prevent public disorder.
- No Inherent Review Power: Quasi-judicial and administrative authorities cannot review or revive previously closed proceedings unless explicitly authorized by statute.
- Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable: Passing ex-parte externment orders without issuing prior show-cause notice or granting an opportunity to offer an explanation violates statutory safeguards under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam.
“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 ipse dixit. The existence of objective material and a discernible nexus between such material and the conclusion reached are indispensable safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power,” the bench observed.
The judgment came upon an appeal challenging a January verdict of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had refused to interfere with the ex-parte banishment order and relegated the appellant to pursue a statutory appellate remedy under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
Reviewing the case history, the Supreme Court pointed out that in April 2019, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, had recommended externment proceedings under Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Adhiniyam based on 10 past cases registered against the appellant between 2009 and 2019. However, finding that the appellant had already secured acquittals in those matters, the District Magistrate had formally dropped the proceedings after issuing a warning.
Subsequently, following two fresh FIRs—including one related to allegedly disparaging remarks against a revered saint—the police submitted a fresh report, prompting the District Magistrate to arbitrarily issue the externment directive without serving statutory notice or allowing the appellant a hearing.
Court Reprimands High Court’s ‘Hands-Off’ Approach
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s refusal to intervene, holding that relegating the litigant to an appellate authority in the face of flagrant procedural illegality and natural justice violations constituted an “abject failure” to exercise constitutional supervisory jurisdiction.
The bench further noted that administrative bodies possess no inherent powers of review without express legislative sanction, concluding that the District Magistrate had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. Setting aside both the High Court judgment and the impugned administrative decree, the apex court ordered that the appellant is fully entitled to re-enter the districts from which he was unlawfully excluded.
