Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order for Lack of Evidence and Non-Application of Mind: Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra (28 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 79

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can authorities restrict a citizen’s movement based on mere suspicion and without concrete evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Deepak S/O Laxman Dongre vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., concerning an externment order issued under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. This judgment highlights the importance of protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that restrictions are imposed only when absolutely necessary and based on sound reasoning and evidence. The bench was composed of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around an externment order issued against Deepak Dongre, a resident of Jalna district in Maharashtra. The order, dated 15th December 2020, directed 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 the order, arguing it was based on insufficient evidence and was a result of mala fide intentions. The appellant also contended that the order was passed without proper application of mind by the competent authority.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, after being served with the externment order, filed a statutory appeal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the externment order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision and the externment order.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which allows authorities to extern individuals under certain circumstances. Section 56(1) 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…”

This provision is juxtaposed against Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India. However, Article 19(5) allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order. The Supreme Court emphasized that any restriction imposed under Section 56 must be reasonable and based on objective material.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The externment order was a mala fide act, influenced by a local MLA due to family disputes.
• The MLA had previously tried to implicate the appellant in a false case.
• The in-camera statements of witnesses were vague and lacked specific allegations.
• Most of the offenses relied upon were old and had no live link to the need for externment.
• The two recent offenses were not serious enough to warrant externment and did not meet the criteria under clauses (a) or (b) of Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The appellant’s detention under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on the same grounds.
• The externment order was for the maximum period of two years without any specific justification.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The competent authority is not required to pass a reasoned order, only a subjective satisfaction of the grounds under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The scope of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is different from Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The High Court had thoroughly examined and rejected all grounds of challenge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, was valid given the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the competent authority had applied its mind while passing the order of externment, especially concerning the maximum period of two years.
3. Whether the order of externment was passed based on objective material and in compliance with the requirements of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State of Maharashtra [(1973) 1 SCC 372]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that externment orders are an extraordinary measure and must be used sparingly.
• Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: The Court emphasized that the competent authority must have objective material to support the subjective satisfaction required under this section. The Court also highlighted that the order must show that the competent authority had applied its mind to the specific grounds under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: The Court pointed out that the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction based on material on record for imposing the maximum permissible period of two years.
• Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India: The Court underscored that externment orders infringe upon the fundamental right to free movement and must be reasonable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of objective material and the non-application of mind by the competent authority. The Court emphasized that externment orders, which infringe upon fundamental rights, must be based on concrete evidence and sound reasoning. The Court also noted the casual and cavalier manner in which the order was passed, indicating a lack of serious consideration for the implications of restricting a citizen’s movement. The rejection of the detention proposal by the Judicial Magistrate on the same set of allegations further weighed against the validity of the externment order. The Court also took note of the fact that the competent authority did not record its subjective satisfaction for imposing the maximum period of two years.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that while the factual aspects of the case were important, the legal principles and the interpretation of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, were more influential in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the clear lack of evidence and the casual manner in which the order was passed. The Court emphasized that the order failed to meet the requirements of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and violated the appellant’s fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable and based on objective material. The Court found that the externment order failed to meet these criteria, as it was based on stale offenses, vague witness statements, and a non-application of mind by the competent authority. The Court also emphasized that the order did 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 stated that the order was passed in a casual and cavalier manner.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“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 impugned order appears to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner.”

“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.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• Externment orders are an extraordinary measure and should be used sparingly.
• Authorities must have objective material to support externment orders.
• The competent authority must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Stale offenses cannot be the basis for externment orders.
• The maximum period of externment requires specific justification and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
• The order must show that the competent authority had applied its mind to the specific grounds under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
• The order must record the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority for imposing the maximum period of two years.
• The decision emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights and the need for due process.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the externment order dated 15th December 2020, and the High Court’s judgment and order dated 20th August 2021.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that externment orders must be based on objective material and the competent authority must apply its mind to the specific facts of the case. The Court also emphasized that the order must record the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority for imposing the maximum period of two years. This decision reinforces the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable and justified. This judgment clarifies the law on externment orders by emphasizing the need for a live link between past offenses and the necessity for externment. It also highlights the importance of the competent authority’s subjective satisfaction based on material on record for imposing the maximum period of two years. This judgment strengthens the protection of fundamental rights by ensuring that externment orders are not passed casually but are based on sound legal principles and evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak S/O Laxman Dongre vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. quashed the externment order due to the lack of sufficient evidence, non-application of mind by the competent authority, and the unjustified imposition of the maximum externment period. The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that any restrictions on these rights are based on sound legal principles and objective material. This case serves as a reminder that authorities must act judiciously and with due regard for the rights of citizens when exercising powers that restrict their movement.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Externment Order, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56, Article 19(1)(d), Constitution of India

Parent Category: Maharashtra Police Act, 1951

Child Category: Section 56, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951

FAQ

Q: What is an externment order?

A: An externment order is a legal directive that restricts a person’s movement, typically by requiring them to leave a specific area for a certain period.

Q: What are the grounds for issuing an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951?

A: Under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, an externment order can be issued if a person’s movements are causing alarm or if there are reasonable grounds to believe they are about to commit an offense, and witnesses are afraid to testify against them.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about externment orders in this case?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that externment orders must be based on objective material, and the competent authority must apply its mind to the specific facts of the case. The Court also stated that stale offenses cannot be the basis for such orders.

Q: Can an externment order be issued for the maximum period of two years?

A: Yes, but the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction based on material on record for imposing the maximum permissible period of two years.

Q: What should authorities keep in mind when issuing externment orders?

A: Authorities must ensure that there is a live link between past offenses and the necessity for externment, and they must also be satisfied that witnesses are unwilling to come forward due to fear. The order must also show that the competent authority had applied its mind to the specific grounds under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Q: What does this judgment mean for citizens?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting fundamental rights and ensures that externment orders are not issued arbitrarily. It emphasizes the need for due process and objective evidence when restricting a citizen’s movement.