Supreme Court settles the power of Additional District Magistrate under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 in externment cases (29 January 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 74
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can an Additional District Magistrate issue an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question, clarifying the powers of Additional District Magistrates in such cases. The Court held that an Additional District Magistrate, when empowered by the State Government, can issue externment orders under the Adhiniyam, 1990, overturning the High Court’s decision. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case originated from an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, on 26 February 2013, externing Dharmendra Rathore from the district for one year. Rathore appealed this order to the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, which was dismissed on 17 June 2013. Subsequently, Rathore filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Commissioner, arguing that the Additional District Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The High Court, relying on a previous judgment, allowed Rathore’s petition, leading to the State of Madhya Pradesh filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, in its judgment, relied on its earlier decision in the case of *Arvind Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*, where it had held that an Additional District Magistrate is not competent to pass an order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The High Court’s decision was based on the interpretation that only a District Magistrate could pass such orders, and this interpretation was influenced by the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh*. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case revolves around the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Key sections include:

• Section 3: This section empowers a District Magistrate to issue restriction orders against individuals acting prejudicially to the security of the State or public order. “If a District Magistrate is satisfied with respect to any persons that he is acting or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order…the District Magistrate, may make an order…”
• Section 4: This section deals with the dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons causing danger or alarm. “Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the district is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm…the District Magistrate, may by an order…direct the members of such gang or body…”
• Section 13: This section empowers the State Government, or an officer specifically empowered by it, to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5, or 6. “The State Government or the officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf, may, in like circumstances, and in like manner, exercise the powers exercisable in a district by the District Magistrate under Section 3, 4, 5 or 6…”
• Section 18: This section allows the State Government to delegate the powers of a District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973…the State Government may by order direct that any power or duty conferred or imposed on a District Magistrate under this Act shall be exercised or performed by such additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate…”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The State argued that the High Court erred in relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh* because that case dealt with the Defence of India Act, 1962, which had a different statutory scheme.
• The appellant contended that the *Adhiniyam, 1990* has a different statutory scheme, and under Section 18, the State Government can delegate the powers of the District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate.
• The State submitted that the Additional District Magistrate was fully competent to pass the order under the *Adhiniyam, 1990*, especially given the notification issued by the State Government on 05.03.2003.

Respondent (Dharmendra Rathore):

• The respondent argued that since Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the *Adhiniyam, 1990* empower the District Magistrate to pass orders, an authority lower in rank, such as the Additional District Magistrate, cannot pass such orders.
• The respondent further submitted that the State Government could not delegate its power under Section 13 to any authority lower in rank than the District Magistrate.
• The respondent also mentioned that there were other grounds to challenge the order of the Additional District Magistrate in the writ petition, which were not considered by the High Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Additional District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of *Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1619* stating that the statutory scheme of the Defence of India Act, 1962, was different from the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The Court noted that the Defence of India Act, 1962, specifically restricted the power of detention to an authority not lower in rank than a District Magistrate, which is not the case in the *Adhiniyam, 1990*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the statutory scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, particularly Sections 13 and 18. The Court emphasized that Section 13 allows the State Government to empower an officer to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate, and Section 18 permits the delegation of these powers to Additional District Magistrates. The Court reasoned that unlike the Defence of India Act, 1962, the *Adhiniyam, 1990* does not restrict the delegation of powers to officers not lower than the rank of a District Magistrate. The Court also noted that the notification dated 05.03.2003, issued by the State Government, specifically empowered Additional District Magistrates to exercise these powers.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990, particularly Sections 13 and 18, allows for the delegation of powers to Additional District Magistrates. The Court distinguished the present case from *Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh*, noting that the Defence of India Act, 1962, had a specific restriction not present in the *Adhiniyam, 1990*. The Court also noted the existence of the notification dated 05.03.2003, which specifically empowered Additional District Magistrates to exercise the powers of the District Magistrate.

The Court rejected the argument that only a District Magistrate could pass such orders, stating that the *Adhiniyam, 1990* allows for delegation of power. The Court also did not consider other grounds raised by the respondent due to the expiry of the externment period.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the *Adhiniyam, 1990* and the specific notification issued by the State Government. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the *Ajaib Singh* case, as it was based on a different statutory scheme. The Court emphasized that the *Adhiniyam, 1990* clearly contemplates the exercise of the powers of the District Magistrate by an Additional District Magistrate.

The Court quoted from the judgment, “Thus, the Scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990 clearly contemplate exercise of the power of District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 by an Additional District Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate.”

The Court also stated, “We are, thus, of the view that Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the present case and High Court committed the error in relying on the said judgment for holding that Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction.”

Another quote from the judgment is, “Applying the ratio of the above judgment in the facts of the present case, it is clear that in the Statutory Scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990, there is no provision, which prohibit passing an order by an officer lower than the rank of District Magistrate rather under Section 13, there is no limitation on the State Government while specially empowering an officer of the State to exercise the power of District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 and further under Section 18, the powers and duties of District Magistrate can be directed to be exercised or performed by Additional District Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate for such areas as may be specified in the order.”

Key Takeaways

• An Additional District Magistrate, when specifically empowered by the State Government, can issue externment orders under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
• The statutory scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, allows for the delegation of powers from the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate.
• The Supreme Court distinguished its earlier judgment in *Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh*, clarifying that the statutory scheme of the Defence of India Act, 1962, is different from the *Adhiniyam, 1990*.
• This judgment clarifies the powers of Additional District Magistrates in Madhya Pradesh under the *Adhiniyam, 1990*, thereby impacting future cases involving externment orders.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Additional District Magistrate, when empowered by the State Government, can exercise the powers of the District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. This judgment clarifies that the statutory scheme of the *Adhiniyam, 1990* allows for the delegation of power to Additional District Magistrates, which is a departure from the interpretation of the High Court, which had relied on the *Ajaib Singh* case. This case clarifies the position of law regarding the powers of Additional District Magistrates under the *Adhiniyam, 1990*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s judgments. The Court held that an Additional District Magistrate, when empowered by the State Government, has the jurisdiction to pass externment orders under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. This decision clarifies the extent of powers that can be exercised by Additional District Magistrates under the *Adhiniyam, 1990* and distinguishes the statutory scheme from the Defence of India Act, 1962.