The Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court declared a State Government notification conferring externment powers on Superintendents of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, as non-est and a nullity, observing that an executive instruction or notification cannot run contrary to express provisions in parent statute.

For context, Sections 55 and 56 of the 1963 Act provide power to remove persons about to commit crimes or convicted of certain offences from an area to the Police Commissioner, for Bangalore city and other areas for which a Commissioner is appointed. For other areas, the power can be extended only to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) through a notification published in the Official Gazette.

Quashing an externment order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, against the petitioner, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute. Executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where there is a gap, but they cannot override, amend, or run contrary to the express provisions of the parent statute.”

In the present case, the Court examined the competence of Superintendence of Police (SP) to exercise powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, as provided by a notification dated November 18, 2025.

Justice Magadum noted that the notification dated November 18, 2025, had never been published in the Official Gazette, as admitted by the State before the Court, and thus, it lacks legal efficacy.

“Consequently, in the absence of publication of the notification dated 18.11.2025 in the Official Gazette, the statutory requirement under Section 55 of the Act, 1963, remains unfulfilled. The notification, therefore, cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Police to exercise powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, 1963. On this ground alone, the exercise of such power by the Superintendent of Police would be without jurisdiction,” the Court held.

The High Court further observed that even if the State were to publish the notification in the Official Gazette, it could not validly confer externment powers on an SP under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act. The provisions specifically identify the Commissioner, DM and SDM as the only authorities having jurisdiction, the Court highlighted.

“The Superintendent of Police does not fall within either of the categories expressly contemplated by Section 55 of the Act, 1963. The office or cadre of Superintendent of Police cannot be equated with that of a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The statutory authority identified by the legislature cannot be substituted by another authority merely by an executive act of delegation,” the Court said.

It added, “It follows that even a notification published in the Official Gazette cannot cure the inherent lack of statutory competence of the Superintendent of Police. The power to extend the operation of Section 55 is itself circumscribed by the statute.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Sangeeta Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (1991), wherein the Apex Court held that the executive instructions or notifications cannot amend, supersede or run contrary to the express provisions of the parent statute.

The High Court also placed reliance upon Apex Court judgements in State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh (1964) and Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. (2001), wherein it was observed that when a statute confers a power and prescribes the manner and authority by whom it is to be exercised, then any departure, including performance by an unauthorised person, renders the act invalid.

Finding that the notification cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, the Court allowed the writ petition challenging the notification and a consequential externment order dated April 28, 2026, passed against him by the Belagavi SP.

“The notification dated 18.11.2025 is declared non-est and a nullity, insofar as the second part thereof purports to appoint/confer powers upon the Superintendent of Police as the authority competent to exercise powers under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, including Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, thereof,” the Court ordered.

The Court further quashed the externment order passed against the petitioner.

Case: Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State if Karnataka & others

WP No. 104096 of 2026 (GM-Police)

Click Here To Read/Download Order