Externment Without Material Evidence Violates Personal Liberty: MP High Court Sets Aside DM's Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that an externment order under MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, cannot be passed mechanically as it casts serious restrictions on the fundamental rights and personal liberty of any person. 

In doing so, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf set aside the externment order, noting lack of material showing any immediate engagement of the offender in the commission of the offence. 

The division bench observed; 

"Sufficient material was not available on record to show that there was any immediate engagement of the offender in commission of offence and, therefore, no order could be passed against the appellant. Passing of the order in mechanical manner is condemnable as the externment order casts serious restrictions on the fundamental rights and personal liberty of any person". 

On March 22, 2024, the Betul Superintendent of Police recommended that the District Magistrate pass an externment order against the appellant under the Act, 1990, citing around 12 criminal cases registered against him. The recommendation further noted that the witnesses were allegedly unwilling to come forward due to fear.

Acting on this, the District Magistrate issued a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1990, after hearing the appellant, and passed an externment order on November 21, 2024. The order directed the appellant to remove himself from Betul and the nearby districts of Chhindwara, Narmadapuram, Khandwa and Harda for a period of one year.

The appellant challenged the said order before the Narmadapuram Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the representation. A Single Bench of the High Court also upheld the externment. Aggrieved, he approached the Division Bench of the High Court. 

Counsel for the appellant contended that the SP's recommendation requested to pass an externment order against Golu, s/o Prabhakar Solanki. The appellant also submitted that there was no real apprehension of danger to public safety, pointing out the 8-month gap between SP's recommendation and the passing of the externment order, which reflects the lack of urgency.

The division bench observed that Section 5 empowers the authorities to take action against any person by removing him from the district or any part thereof to prevent violence, danger to life ot property, or to prevent him from committing offences punishable under provisions related to counterfeit currency (Chapter XII), offences affecting the human body (Chapter XVI), offences against rpoeprty (Chapter XVII), criminal intimidating (Section 506) and insulting the modesty of woman (Section 509) of the IPC. 

The division bench observed that the impugned order did not cite any recent or proximate incident showing danger to any person or property. Additionally, the authorities did not submit material indicating the appellant's immediate involvement in criminal activity. 

The division bench found that, except for crime No 272/2016 and 754/2021, no offences of a heinous nature were registered against the appellant to justify invoking the Act, 1990. The other offences registered against him were under the Gambling Act, along with the provision of abetment (Section 109 of the IPC). One Istagasa was also submitted in 2024, which cannot be considered relevant for the purpose of passing such an order. 

The writ court had earlier held that it could not interfere because the District Magistrate followed the procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the Act, 1990. The Division Bench disagreed, holding that the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution had to examine the legality and validity of the order passed under the Act, 1990, as the same adversely affected the fundamental rights and personal liberty of the externee. 

Upon evaluation of facts, the division bench concluded that the District Magistrate's decision lacked cogent material and failed to satisfy statutory requirements under the Act, 1990. Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the externment order. 

Case Title: Tushar v State [Writ Appeal 1035 of 2025] 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 248

For Appellant: Advocate Sunil Kumar Pandey 

For State: Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar

Click here to read/download the Order