The Court quashed an externment order under the Karnataka Police Act, holding that an externment order must be based on objective material and extraordinary circumstances, not merely on pending criminal cases or upcoming elections.
The externment order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No. 871 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MADHUSUDAN @ MADHU R. S. @ PARTY S/O. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT, # 02, WATER SUPPLY QUARTERS, VEERANAGERE, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 001. PRESENT ADDRESS: # 03, VANIVILAS WATER WORKS, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU – 570 020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY. H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2023 IN NO. M.A.G (2)/GADIPARU/04/2022 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE A. ALLOW THIS WP WITH COST AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.02.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 03-01-2023 passed by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Police and Special Executive Magistrate, Mysore City directing externment of the petitioner from Mysore City for a period of six months.
3
The petitioner claims to be a resident of Yadavagiri Extension, Mysore. Alleging that the petitioner is involved in certain offences, an order comes to be passed against the petitioner on 03-01-2023 invoking Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) externing him from Mysore for a period of six months with a view to keep the law and order in the vicinity where the petitioner lives to be peaceful. It is this order that is called in question in the subject petition.
4
the learned counsel that the order is passed without complying with the Act. Except stating that there are chances of law and order problem in the area and pendency of four cases, no other material is collected in support of the order passed. The order is passed only on the basis of a report submitted by the 3rd respondent without making any detailed enquiry. It is his submission that mere apprehension of police is not enough for passing an order of externment and there must be valid ground and corroborative material to show that there is danger from the petitioner if he moves around in the area.
5
elections are round the corner. He would submit that the impugned order is in accordance with law as notice was issued to the petitioner and a reply from the petitioner was sought and consideration of the reply has resulted in the impugned order.
55. Removal of persons about to commit offences .— Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official
6
Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,—
the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself.
56. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences .—If a person has been convicted at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act,—
7
the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area or any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto, by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter or return to the place from which he was directed to remove himself.
Explanation .—For the purpose of this section “an offence similar to that for which a person was convicted” shall mean,—
8
provisions of the Acts mentioned respectively in the said clauses.
57. Period of operation of orders under section 54, 55 or 56.— A direction made under section 54, 55 or 56 not to enter any particular area or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which it was made.
58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section 54, 55 or 56.— (1) Before an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him.
(2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed.
59. Appeal .—Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 54, 55 or 56 may appeal to the Government within thirty days from the date of such order.
9
60. Finality of orders. —Any order passed under section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government under section 59 shall not be called in question in any court except on the ground that the authority making the order or any officer authorised by it had not followed the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of section 58 or that there was no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have based its order or on the ground that the said authority was not of opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the person in respect of whom an order was made under section 55.”
Section 55 is removal of persons about to commit offences. Whenever it appears in the city of Bangalore or other areas that movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, such person can be removed from that area by passing an order of externment. Section 56 deals with removal of persons convicted of certain offences. Section 57 deals with period of operation of orders passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56. Therefore, Section 57 mandates that the period should be indicated in the order. Section 58 mandates that an opportunity of hearing should be rendered to the person against whom the order is passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56. Section 59 permits any person aggrieved by orders passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 to appeal to the Government within 30 days from the date
10
of such order. This is the statutory frame work under which orders
of externment can be passed against any person.
“6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, there is a fundamental right conferred on the citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India. In view of clause (5) of Article 19, State is empowered to make a law enabling the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by clause (d). An order of externment passed under provisions of Section 56 of the 1951 Act imposes a restraint on the person against whom the order is made from entering a particular area. Thus, such orders infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d). Hence, the restriction imposed by passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness.
7. Section 56 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“56. Removal of persons about to commit offence-
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99
11
Government in that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or [(bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance or supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or such prejudicial act], or the outbreak or spread of such disease or [notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time, as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (hereinafter referred to as “the
12
specified area or areas”) from which he was directed to remove himself.
(2) An officer directing any person under sub-section (1) to remove himself from any specified area or areas in the State may further direct such person that during the period the order made against him is in force, as and when he resides in any other areas in the State, he shall report his place of residence to the officer-incharge of the nearest police station once in every month, even if there be no change in his address. The said officer may also direct that, during the said period, as and when he goes away from the State, he shall, within ten days from the date of his departure from the State send a report in writing to the said officer, either by post or otherwise, of the date of his departure, and as and when he comes back to the State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to the officer-in-charge of the police station nearest to the place where he may be staying.
(underline supplied)
8. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 56 shows that there are distinct grounds specified under sub-section (1) of Section 56 for passing an order of externment. The said grounds are in clauses (a), (b), (bb), and (c). In the present case, clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the 1951 Act have been invoked. The ground in clause (a) is that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a person or property. The ground in clause (b) is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII in IPC, or the abetment of any such offence. Clause (b) is qualified by a condition that the competent authority empowered to pass such order should be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of
13
their person or property. Obviously, the opinion must be formed on the basis of material on record.
9. As observed earlier, Section 56 makes serious inroads on the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. In the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State of Maharashtr a1 in paragraph 9, this Court has held that the reasons which necessitate or justify the passing of an extraordinary order of externment arise out of extraordinary circumstances. In the same decision, this Court held that care must be taken to ensure that the requirement of giving a hearing under Section 59 of the 1951 Act is strictly complied with. This Court also held that the requirements of Section 56 must be strictly complied with.
10. There cannot be any manner of doubt that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure. The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. In practical terms, such an order prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during the period for which this order is in subsistence. In a given case, such order may deprive the person of his livelihood. It thus follows that recourse should be taken to Section 56 very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure. For invoking clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 56, there must be objective material on record on the basis of which the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property. For passing an order under clause (b), there must be objective material on the basis of which the competent authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC. Offences under Chapter XII are relating to Coin and Government Stamps. Offences under Chapter XVI are offences affecting the human body and offences under Chapter XVII are
14
offences relating to the property. In a given case, even if multiple offences have been registered which are referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person proposed to be externed by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or their property. The recording of such subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment under clause (b).
11. On 2nd June 2019, the Police Inspector of Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna submitted a proposal to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Badnapur for permitting detention of the appellant for a period of 15 days by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC (as inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1981). In the said proposal, reliance was placed on the same six offences registered against the appellant, which were made a part of the show-cause notice dated 7th July 2020 on the basis of which the impugned order of externment was passed. The police arrested the appellant and produced him on 2nd June 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class along with the aforesaid proposal. By the order dated 2nd June 2020 (Annexure P-4), the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said proposal to detain the appellant and directed his immediate release subject to the condition of attending the concerned Police Station between 10 am to 1 pm till 9th June 2020.
12. The power under sub-section (3) of Section 151 as amended for the State of Maharashtra is to arrest a person on the basis of an apprehension that he is likely to continue the design to commit, or is likely to commit a cognizable offence after his release and that the circumstances of the case are such that his presence is likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the proposal to keep the appellant in detention for 15 days. There is nothing placed on record to show that the said order was challenged by the police. After having failed to satisfy the
15
learned Judicial Magistrate about the necessity of detaining the appellant for 15 days, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer initiated action of externment against him by issuing a show-cause notice on 7th July 2020. It is not the case made out in the show cause notice dated 7th July 2020 that after release of the appellant on 2nd June 2020, the appellant indulged in the commission of any offence or any other objectionable activity.
13. Considering the nature of the power under Section 56, the competent authority is not expected to write a judgment containing elaborate reasons. However, the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction of the existence of one of the grounds in subsection (1) of Section 56 on the basis of objective material placed before it. Though the competent authority is not required to record reasons on par with a judicial order, when challenged, the competent authority must be in a position to show the application of mind. The Court while testing the order of externment cannot go into the question of sufficiency of material based on which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded. However, the Court can always consider whether there existed any material on the basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been recorded. The Court can interfere when either there is no material or the relevant material has not been considered. The Court cannot interfere because there is a possibility of another view being taken. As in the case of any other administrative order, the judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
14. In the facts of the case, the non-application of mind is apparent on the face of the record as the order dated 2nd June 2020 of the learned Judicial Magistrate is not even considered in the impugned order of externment though the appellant specifically relied upon it in his reply. This is very relevant as the appellant was sought to be detained under sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC for a period of 15 days on the basis of the same offences which are relied upon in the impugned order of externment. As mentioned earlier, from 2nd June 2020 till the passing of the impugned order of externment, the appellant is not shown to be involved in any
16
objectionable activity. The impugned order appears to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner. The first three offences relied upon are of 2013 and 2018 which are stale offences in the sense that there is no live link between the said offences and the necessity of passing an order of externment in the year 2020. The two offences of 2020 alleged against the appellant are against two individuals. The first one is the daughter of the said MLA and the other is the said Varsha Bankar. There is material on record to show that the said Varsha Bankar was acting as per the instructions of the brother of the said MLA. The said two offences are in respect of individuals. There is no material on record to show that witnesses were not coming forward to depose in these two cases. Therefore, both clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 56 are not attracted.
15. As the order impugned takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. Considering the bare facts on record, the said order shows non-application of mind and smacks of arbitrariness. Therefore, it becomes vulnerable. The order cannot be sustained in law.
16. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“ 58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case may be”.
17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify
17
the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no. 2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly holds that externment is not an ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly only in extraordinary circumstances as the order takes away the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d). Therefore, it must stand the test of reasonableness as contemplated by Clause (5) of Article 19. The
18
Apex Court was interpreting the provisions of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 which is in pari materia with the Act. Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act are identical to the provisions quoted supra . Therefore, the interpretation would become applicable to the case at hand. In the light of passing an order of externment against any citizen, it is necessary to notice whether there was any minimum proximity or necessity for passing an order of externment against the petitioner.
19
against the petitioner is in Crime No.99 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Police here again have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and is pending consideration in C.C.No.541 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences. The fourth case that is pending against the petitioner is in Crime No.41 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 504, 506 r/w 149 of the IPC. The said crime is pending consideration in C.C.No.853 of 2021. Therefore, there are four crimes registered against the petitioner all of which are pending consideration before different Courts in Mysore city for the afore-quoted offences. In no case the petitioner has been convicted for any offence so far. Section 55 of the Act thus, becomes not applicable to the petitioner.
“¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï
F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, «±ÉõÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ zÀAqsÁ¢üPÁj, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, PÁ & ¸ÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀgÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¸ÀA.JA.Jf(2)/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/04/2022 jÃvÀå ¢£ÁAPÀ.03/01/2023gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁV ªÀiÁr 06 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ºÁ¸À£À f¯Áè mË£ï ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ (¸ÀܼÁAvÀgÀ) ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ, 06 wAUÀ¼À PÁ®
20
ºÁ¸À£À f¯Áè mË£ï ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À EgÀ®Ä CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ PÀÆqÀ¯É ®µÀÌgï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjgÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.”
(Emphasis added)
There are no reasons indicated in the Police notice issued seeking to show cause as to why externment order should not be passed against the petitioner for a period of 6 months. The petitioner submits his reply to the said notice on 06-12-2022 contending that he has not been involved in any crime and prayed for not passing externment order.
“¸ÀASÉå:JA.J.f(2)/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/04/2022 ¢£ÁAPÀ:03-01-2023
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ ¥Éưøï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï, ®µÀÌgï ¥ÉÆ°¸ï oÁuÉ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÆ°¸ï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-1963 PÀ®A 55 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ®µÀÌgï ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ®µÀÌgï ªÉƺÀ¯Áè «ÃgÀ£ÀUÉgÉ, ªÁlgï ¸À¥ÉèöÊ PÁélæ¸ï£À ªÁ¹ ªÀÄzsÀĸÀÆzÀ£ï@ªÀÄzsÀÄ Dgï.J¸ï@¥Ánð ©£ï ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁ° «.«.¥ÀÄgÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ªÁt«¯Á¸À ªÁlgï ªÀPïìð AiÀiÁzÀªÀVjAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Éưøï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-1963 PÀ®A 55 ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, MAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ²PÉëAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ EzÉà ¥ÀæªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀªÀ«zÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À mË£ï ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ 06 wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹zÉ. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ FvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
21
ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. EzÀgÀ ºÉÆgÀvÁV F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÉ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÉò¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.
F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀ H®èAX¹zÀgÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Éưøï PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 61gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£À mË£ï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉègÀªÀjUÉ ¤zÉÃð²¸ÀÄvÀÛ, F DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉèUÉ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹ DvÀ£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¹, ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, DzÉñÀ ¥Á®£ÉªÀÄAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Á®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß »AzÀPÉÌ PÀgɬĹPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”
What would unmistakably emerge from the notice so issued to the petitioner and the order that is passed is, it is in violation of law. The notice does not indicate any reason for the petitioner to reply. The order indicates several reasons including pendency of several crimes. If the petitioner was issued a notice in terms of Section 58 of the Act which contemplates opportunity of hearing to be given to any citizen against whom an order of externment would be passed, the petitioner perhaps would have replied to the same with all details. Having not enclosed anything to the notice or reasons forthcoming, the order would be bad in law, as it is an order that takes away the fundamental right of the citizen which justification is sought to be made in the statement of objections by placing on record the crimes registered and the charge sheets filed by the
22
Police. The ostensible reason appears to be at paragraph 5 of the statement of objections which reads as follows:
“5. The above acts of the petitioner explicitly demonstrate that he is likely to commit further offenses, and he will create law and order problem by disturbing public peace and tranquility. The Police have also received credible information that such problem will be created not only in the near future but also during the upcoming Legislative Assembly Elections. He may interrupt the election process by threatening the general public and the political workers, thereby trying to disturb the concept of free and fair elections. By keeping in mind of the above stated facts and the situation the Lashkar Police rightly forwarded the requisition to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to pass an order under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act. A speaking order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police after giving due notice and due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police is more than justified in passing the said order where the externment of the petitioner is inevitable to secure peace and harmony int eh vicinity. The presence of the petitioner in the area would certainly cause disturbance to the peace and tranquility in coming future.”
(Emphasis added)
The step is taken keeping in mind the upcoming election to the State Legislative Assembly which is again a ground for which the petitioner’s fundamental right cannot be curtailed. As held by the Apex Court it is not an ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly in extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary circumstance is neither narrated in the notice nor in the order. Mere pendency of criminal cases would not lead to externment of
23
the petitioner. The notice which did not indicate any reason for passing such an order and the petitioner being taken by surprise by a detailed order is rendered unsustainable. Therefore, the order of externment does not satisfy the test of reasonableness as contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India for it takes away the fundamental right of the petitioner’s movement anywhere in the country.
O R D E R
Sd/JUDGE
Bkp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an externment order under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 passed without disclosing reasons in the show cause notice and based only on pending criminal cases without conviction sa
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶8
DEEPAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhusudan @ Madhu R. S. @ Party
The State Of Karnataka
The Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law And Order, Mysuru City
The Police Inspector Lashkar Police Station, Mysuru City
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
