Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order

“Mere Reproduction Of Statutory Language Is Not Enough — Authorities Must Show Real Material That Activities Cause Alarm Or That Witnesses Fear Testifying”, In a significant ruling on the limits of preventive externment powers, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) set aside an externment order passed against a resident of Ujjain, holding that mechanical reliance on police reports and old criminal cases cannot justify removal under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar held that the District Magistrate failed to record legally sustainable reasons showing that the petitioner’s activities created alarm or that witnesses were unwilling to depose due to fear, which are mandatory conditions under Section 5 of the Act.

The Court therefore quashed the externment order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ujjain and the appellate order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division.

Background Of The Case

The proceedings began when the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain submitted a report dated 21 October 2024 recommending that the petitioner be externed from several districts due to alleged criminal and anti-social activities.

Acting on this report, the District Magistrate, Ujjain passed an order on 8 December 2025 directing that the petitioner be externed for six months from eight districts — Ujjain, Dewas, Indore, Shajapur, Ratlam, Mandsaur, Dhar and Agar Malwa under Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

The petitioner challenged the order before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, but the appeal was dismissed on 2 February 2026, confirming the externment.

Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Legal Requirements For Externment

The Court explained that Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 contains strict statutory conditions before an externment order can be passed.

The provision requires satisfaction of specific circumstances such as:

“that the movements or acts of a person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property.”

The Court further emphasized that where action is taken under Section 5(b), two essential conditions must exist:

“there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the person is engaged or about to engage in offences involving force or violence, and witnesses must be unwilling to depose publicly due to fear for their safety.”

The Court stressed that both these conditions must be supported by material on record, and mere repetition of statutory language is insufficient.

Mechanical Reliance On Police Report

Examining the impugned order, the High Court found that the District Magistrate had simply relied upon the report of the Superintendent of Police without independent verification or analysis.

The Court noted that the order merely stated that the petitioner was a habitual criminal creating fear in society, without recording concrete reasons or referring to specific material supporting that conclusion.

The Court observed:

“The District Magistrate relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police to conclude that he is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities… whereas the material on record suggests otherwise.”

Absence Of Evidence That Witnesses Were Afraid

A crucial requirement under Section 5(b) is that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose publicly due to fear of harm.

The Court held that the externment order completely failed to demonstrate this condition.

Justice Kalgaonkar noted:

“The reasons for opinion regarding unwillingness of witnesses to give evidence are not supported by any material. No witness was examined by the police or the District Magistrate alleging threat by the conduct of the petitioner.”

Thus, the Court concluded that the statutory requirement had not been satisfied.

Reliance On Old And Stale Criminal Cases

Another major defect identified by the Court was the reliance on old and stale criminal cases.

The Court observed that several cases cited by the authorities had already ended in acquittal or were based on compromise, and the last prosecution was registered in 2024.

The Court emphasized that preventive action must have a close temporal nexus with recent criminal conduct, observing:

“An order of externment cannot be justified on stale antecedents lacking proximity to the date of the order.”

Externment Orders Must Respect Fundamental Rights

The High Court also highlighted that externment orders impose serious restrictions on personal liberty and freedom of movement, which are protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court therefore reiterated that such powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory safeguards, and failure to comply with those safeguards renders the order invalid.

Court Finds Appellate Authority Failed To Apply Mind

The Court further held that the Commissioner, Ujjain Division failed to properly examine the material while deciding the appeal, and had mechanically affirmed the externment order.

This failure amounted to manifest impropriety in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

After analysing the statutory provisions and the facts of the case, the High Court concluded that the mandatory conditions under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam were not satisfied.

The Court therefore held:

“The twin conditions for order of removal laid down in Section 5(a) and (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 did not exist.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the externment order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ujjain and the appellate order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division.

The writ petition was allowed.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026