Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court

"Action taken by the Respondent–State of Maharashtra of externing the Petitioner, merely for opposing certain decisions of the Government of India, affects the Petitioner's fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and also right to live with dignity," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 02, 2026, held that participating in political agitations or protesting against government policies cannot form the legal basis for an externment order.

A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that the power of externment cannot be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or the exercise of democratic rights. The Court emphasized that such state action directly infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner, who serves as the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Mumbai, which was later upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. The state's action was based on multiple FIRs registered against the Petitioner for organizing morchas and dharnas against certain decisions of the Union Government without obtaining prior police permission. The Petitioner contended that the action was mala fide and lacked the necessary subjective satisfaction required under the law.

The primary question before the Court was whether the registration of FIRs under Section 188 of the IPC for holding protests constitutes sufficient material to satisfy the requirements of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Court was also called upon to determine if the right to dissent can be curtailed through extraordinary measures like externment.

Externment Is An Extraordinary Measure Depriving Fundamental Rights

The Court noted that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure because its primary effect is to deprive a citizen of their fundamental right to free movement throughout the territory of India. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, the bench observed that such a drastic step must be supported by cogent material and not be used routinely.

Protests Under Section 188 IPC Do Not Warrant Externment

Upon perusing the FIRs, the bench found that the allegations were restricted to organizing agitations and slogans opposing Government decisions without permission. These acts fall under Section 188 of the IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of one month. The Court held that such offences do not provide a material basis to conclude that a person is causing "alarm, danger or harm" to persons or property as required under Section 56(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Subjective Satisfaction Of Authorities Vitiated Without Material Evidence

The bench observed that while the externment proposal claimed the Petitioner's acts were causing alarm to the public, the actual gist of the FIRs showed nothing beyond political protest. The Court held that the "subjective satisfaction" recorded by the police authorities was vitiated because there was no material to support the claim that the Petitioner was engaged in violence or offences against the human body.

"The subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities that movements and acts of the Petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger and harm to the public and property, is without any material to support the same."

Suppression Of Democratic Rights Through Police Power Is Impermissible

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that statutory powers cannot be utilized to suppress the legitimate expression of grievances. Justice Jamdar noted that the Gujarat High Court had taken a similar view in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat, ruling that a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for raising grievances against the Government.

State Action Violates Right To Live With Dignity Under Article 21

The Court highlighted that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution ensure that citizens not only have the freedom of speech but also the right to live with dignity. The bench found that the State's action of externing a political leader for his opposition to policy decisions was a direct blow to these constitutional protections. The Court concluded that the proceedings against the Petitioner were a "mala fide action" intended to stifle dissent.

"The power under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [or similar provisions] cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights."

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the externment order dated December 3, 2025, as well as the appellate order dated March 27, 2026. The Court reaffirmed that the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy and cannot be categorized as a criminal activity justifying the removal of a person from their district.

Date of Decision: July 02, 2026