The Bombay High Court has held that a person cannot be externed merely for organising protests against government policies, observing that such action infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to live with dignity under the Constitution.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar quashed an externment order issued against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that the authorities had no material to justify their "subjective satisfaction" that his activities caused alarm, danger or harm to the public.

The Court set aside both the externment order dated December 3, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai, and the appellate order dated March 27, 2026, of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

Background

The petitioner challenged his externment under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. He contended that the criminal cases relied upon by the authorities arose from protests, morchas and dharnas organised by the SDPI against certain decisions of the Union Government. Most of the FIRs invoked Section 188 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code for disobedience of orders promulgated by public servants, alleging that the demonstrations were held without police permission.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the externment order was passed without any factual basis and amounted to a mala fide attempt to curb political dissent. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and the Gujarat High Court decision in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat which had similarly held that externment cannot be used against persons protesting government decisions.

The State defended the action, contending that the petitioner had organised demonstrations despite refusal of police permission and had raised objectionable slogans. It relied on the reasons recorded in the externment order and an affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

No Material To Show Alarm Or Danger

Examining Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the Court noted that externment can be ordered only 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 that the person is engaged in offences involving force or violence.

Justice Jamdar found that the material placed before the authorities did not satisfy these statutory requirements.

The Court observed that all the FIRs merely alleged that the petitioner, in his capacity as the SDPI Secretary, organised protests against decisions of the Union Government and conducted demonstrations without police permission. Such allegations, even if they disclosed an offence under Section 188 IPC carrying a maximum punishment of one month's simple imprisonment, could not justify an order of externment.

"There is no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the Petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property," the Court held.

It further noted that although the externment proposal asserted that the petitioner's activities caused alarm and danger, the FIRs themselves contained no such allegations. Consequently, the authorities' subjective satisfaction lacked any supporting material and stood vitiated.

Externment Is An Extraordinary Measure

Reiterating that externment is an extraordinary measure depriving a citizen of the fundamental right to free movement, the Court emphasised that constitutional protections under Articles 19 and 21 extend not only to freedom of speech and expression but also to the right to live with dignity.

The Court observed that externing the petitioner merely because he opposed certain decisions of the Union Government directly affected these constitutional rights.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Anuradha Bhasin, the Court noted that powers intended to maintain public order cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, grievances or democratic rights.

It also referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment holding that a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for raising grievances against the Government.

Finding those principles squarely applicable, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both the externment order and the appellate order.

From the hearing -

'Citizens Being Made Slaves Of Indian Govt; If People Protest, Cases Slapped', Says Bombay High Court

Horse Trading Going On In Entire Maharashtra; If You Have FIRs, Switch Sides, There Is 'Washing Machine', Says Bombay High Court