Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order Due to Non-Application of Mind: Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra (28 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 139

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can an externment order, which restricts a person’s movement, be valid if it doesn’t show clear reasoning and is based on old, unrelated offenses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning an order of externment issued under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Court examined whether the order was justified, considering the fundamental rights of the individual and the necessity for such restrictive measures. The bench, comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, unanimously quashed the externment order, emphasizing the importance of reasoned decisions and a clear connection between past actions and the need for such an order. Justice Abhay S. Oka authored the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, a resident of Jalna district, Maharashtra, was served with an externment order on 15th December 2020, directing him to leave the district for two years. This order was based on five criminal cases registered against him and confidential statements from two witnesses. The appellant challenged this order, first in a statutory appeal, then in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, both of which were unsuccessful. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The externment order was issued under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, alleging that the appellant’s activities were causing alarm and that witnesses were afraid to testify against him.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which empowers authorities to issue externment orders. The relevant part of the section states:

“56. Removal of persons about to commit offence-
[(1)] Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay 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 State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State 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 Indian Penal Code, 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…”

The Supreme Court noted that this section must be interpreted strictly, as it infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Any restrictions imposed must be reasonable, as per Article 19(5) of the Constitution. The court also referred to Section 58 of the same Act, which specifies that the maximum period of externment cannot exceed two years.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the externment order was a mala fide act, influenced by a local MLA due to family disputes.
• The appellant contended that the MLA had previously tried to implicate him in a false case.
• He pointed out that the in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were vague and did not specify any particular allegations against him.
• The appellant highlighted that out of the five offenses cited, three were old (2013 and 2018), and there was no live link between these and the need for externment in 2020.
• He argued that the remaining two offenses from 2020 did not justify the invocation of Section 56(1)(a) or (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The appellant also pointed out that he was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the same allegations, and the proposal to detain him was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate.
• He submitted that the order did not assign reasons for externing him for the maximum period of two years under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the competent authority was not required to pass a detailed, reasoned order, and had recorded subjective satisfaction regarding the grounds for externment.
• They submitted that the scope of powers under Section 151(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was different from that of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The respondents stated that the High Court had thoroughly examined the grounds of challenge and rejected them.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the externment order was a mala fide act due to family disputes and the involvement of a local MLA is innovative. The argument that the order does not assign reasons for externing him for the maximum period of two years under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is also innovative.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, was valid, given the alleged lack of application of mind and reliance on stale offenses.
2. Whether the order of externment for the maximum period of two years was justified without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period.
3. Whether the competent authority considered the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the proposal to detain the appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Case Laws:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State of Maharashtra [1973] 1 SCC 372: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that externment orders are extraordinary measures and must strictly comply with legal requirements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Non-application of Mind: The Court found that the externment order was passed without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances, particularly the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the detention proposal.
• Stale Offenses: The Court emphasized that the reliance on old offenses (2013 and 2018) without a live link to the present need for externment was a critical flaw.
• Lack of Specific Allegations: The Court noted that the in-camera statements of witnesses were vague and did not provide specific allegations against the appellant.
• Maximum Period of Externment: The Court highlighted that the order did not provide reasons for imposing the maximum externment period of two years.
• Infringement of Fundamental Rights: The Court was mindful that externment orders infringe upon the fundamental right to free movement and must stand the test of reasonableness.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the stale offenses, the lack of specific allegations, and the non-consideration of the Judicial Magistrate’s order, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision. The legal principles, such as the need for reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and the proper application of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, also played a significant role.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Validity of the externment order

Issue 2: Justification for the maximum period of externment

Issue 3: Consideration of the order of the Judicial Magistrate

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the externment order was unsustainable due to non-application of mind and reliance on stale offenses. The court emphasized that the competent authority had not considered the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the proposal to detain the appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also found that the order did not record the subjective satisfaction of the authority regarding the necessity of externing the appellant for the maximum period of two years.

The court stated:

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

The Court concluded that the externment order was arbitrary and violated the fundamental right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The Court quashed the externment order and the judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Externment orders must be based on a clear application of mind and objective material.
• Stale offenses cannot be the basis for externment orders unless there is a live link to the present need for such action.
• Competent authorities must consider all relevant factors, including previous orders by judicial authorities.
• Externment orders for the maximum permissible period must record the subjective satisfaction of the authority regarding the necessity of such an order.
• The decision reinforces the importance of protecting the fundamental right to free movement and ensuring that any restrictions are reasonable and justified.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than quashing the externment order and the judgment of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion about any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that externment orders must be based on objective material, a clear application of mind, and a live link between past offenses and the present need for such action. The judgment reinforces the principle that externment orders are an extraordinary measure that must be used sparingly and in compliance with legal requirements. It also clarifies that orders for the maximum permissible period must be supported by a subjective satisfaction of the competent authority based on material on record. This decision does not change the law but reinforces the existing principles and provides a clear interpretation of how they should be applied in practice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the externment order against the appellant, emphasizing that such orders must be based on a clear application of mind, objective material, and a live link between past offenses and the present need for externment. The court found that the order was arbitrary and violated the appellant’s fundamental right to free movement. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for authorities to exercise their powers judiciously and in compliance with legal requirements, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.