Protesting Government Policy Cannot Be Grounds for Externment: Bombay High Court
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
By Mahima Katal
Mumbai, July 03: The Bombay High Court has set aside an externment order issued against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), ruling that organizing protests and rallies against government policy — even without police permission — cannot by itself justify externing a citizen from the city.
Background
The case arose out of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging two orders: one passed on December 3, 2025 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai, externing the petitioner, and a subsequent order dated March 27, 2026 by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissing his appeal against that order.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the FIRs cited to justify the externment were overwhelmingly registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code — the provision dealing with disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, carrying a maximum sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. The underlying conduct, it was argued, amounted to nothing more than organizing marches and demonstrations opposing certain Union government decisions.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, defended the order by pointing to slogans raised during the protests and the fact that the demonstrations went ahead despite the police having denied permission.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar examined Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which permits externment where a person's movements or acts are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is engaged in, or about to engage in, offences involving force, violence, or offences under specified chapters of the IPC dealing with harm to the human body.
The Court found no material on record showing that the petitioner's activities met this threshold. The FIRs, it noted, disclosed only that he had organized protests against Union government decisions and that those protests lacked police clearance — conduct falling under Section 188 IPC, not the kind of violent or dangerous behavior Section 56 is meant to address.
On that basis, the Court held that the "subjective satisfaction" recorded by the police authorities — that the petitioner's conduct was calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to the public — was unsupported by any material and was therefore legally unsustainable. The Court also found substance in the argument that the action was taken in bad faith.
Constitutional Dimension
The judgment situates the case within the framework of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to live with dignity. Externment, the Court observed, is an extraordinary measure that strips a citizen of the fundamental right to move freely throughout Indian territory, and such a drastic step could not be justified merely because the petitioner had opposed government policy.
The Court drew on two precedents to support this conclusion:
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court had held, in the context of prohibitory orders under the erstwhile Section 144 CrPC, that such powers cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, grievance, or the exercise of democratic rights.
In Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat (2021), the Gujarat High Court had set aside a similar externment order, holding that a citizen cannot be externed simply for raising grievances against the government.
Applying these principles, the Bombay High Court concluded that a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for voicing opposition to government decisions.
Outcome
The writ petition was allowed. Both the original externment order and the appellate order upholding it were quashed and set aside.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces a recurring theme in Indian constitutional jurisprudence: that preventive and quasi-punitive police powers — whether under prohibitory-order provisions or state police acts — cannot be repurposed as tools to silence political dissent. By distinguishing between genuine threats to public safety and the ordinary friction of organizing unauthorized protests, the Court draws a line meant to protect the space for political opposition and public criticism of government policy, even when protesters fall afoul of procedural requirements like seeking prior police permission.
