Externment Power Under SC/ST Act Not a Judicial Weapon for Personal Vendetta: Madras High Court Quashes Sessions Judge’s Suo Motu Orders

“Before passing an order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, there must be either a complaint or a police report,” ruled the Madras High Court, pulling up the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, for invoking powers under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a manner described as “legally unsustainable and prima facie malicious.”

In a rare and scathing decision dated 9th September 2025, the Madras High Court, through Justice N. Sathish Kumar, set aside two controversial suo motu orders passed by a Sessions Judge — one directing the externment of a former Personal Security Officer (PSO) under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, and another remanding a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) under Section 4 of the same Act. The High Court found that both orders were passed without legal basis, violated statutory safeguards, and appeared to stem from personal animus.

The Court called the externment order “totally unwarranted” and the remand of the DSP “legally impermissible”, and directed an independent enquiry into the conduct of the Judge himself, stating that the case raised serious concerns of misuse of judicial power for settling personal scores.

“Arrest Cannot Be a Court’s Retaliatory Tool Against Police Inaction” – High Court Affirms Discretion of Investigating Officers Under SC/ST Act

The backdrop to this judicial intervention was a bakery altercation that escalated into a full-blown legal and administrative controversy. Two cross complaints were filed following a verbal spat between family members of Parvathi (the complainant) and the PSO’s relatives. Both complaints were registered on 25.07.2025 as CSR entries and closed amicably by 28.07.2025.

Yet weeks later, fresh FIRs were suddenly registered based on the same closed complaints — one against Parvathi’s husband and another against the PSO and his relatives, including an SC/ST offence. The petitioners alleged that the Judge, suspecting the PSO of having sent anonymous complaints against him, acted vindictively, orchestrating the registration of FIRs and then passing suo motu orders to punish the PSO and pressure the police.

The externment order dated 04.09.2025 directed all accused in Crime No.283 of 2025 — including the PSO — to “remove themselves beyond the limits of Kancheepuram District” until the final report was filed. This was done suo motu, without any police report recommending such action.

The Court held that this violated the clear mandate of Section 10, which requires a basis in either a complaint or a police report. Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed,
“Though the Courts have been vested with powers under SC/ST Act for passing orders of externment, such powers are to be exercised only where real atrocities exist, and not in a case of mere altercation over bakery purchases.”

Even more disturbing was the second order dated 08.09.2025, where the Judge directed the judicial remand of a DSP under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, simply for not acting swiftly enough on the externment order. The DSP, who had been summoned to court, was reportedly kept from morning to evening, and then sent to sub-jail in the official vehicle of the Judge — not for committing an offence, but for allegedly not executing the earlier order.

The High Court rejected this action outright, stating,
“Arrest is purely the discretion of the Investigating Officer. The Court cannot direct that a particular person should be arrested.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar [(2024) SCC Online SC 1591], the Court underlined that no proceedings under Section 4 can be initiated against a public servant unless there is a specific administrative recommendation of willful neglect. The Judge’s action was found to be devoid of any such procedural foundation.

“Judicial Power Is Not Personal Property” – Madras High Court Orders Vigilance Probe into Judge’s Conduct Over WhatsApp Messages and Coercion Allegations

The High Court went beyond merely setting aside the impugned orders. It acknowledged that the allegations made by the petitioners — including WhatsApp communications between the Judge and senior police officers, alleged threats to register FIRs, and demands for arrest — needed urgent independent investigation.

Justice Sathish Kumar noted:
“The manner in which the impugned orders are passed prima facie would probabilise the allegations made… The externment and remand orders appear to be driven more by motive than by law.”

Referring the matter to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court, the Judge ordered a full inquiry into the Judge’s conduct between the dates of the original complaints (25.07.2025) and the final remand (08.09.2025), specifically focusing on conversations with the Superintendent of Police and coercive directions to the police.

The Court directed:
“The Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, shall conduct an enquiry in this regard and file a report before this Court on 23.09.2025 for taking further action.”

“SC/ST Act Is a Shield, Not a Sword for Judicial Overreach” – High Court Sends Strong Message on Judicial Accountability

In its concluding observations, the Court emphasized that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a tool for protection of vulnerable communities, not for satisfying judicial egos or vendettas. The judiciary’s role, it held, is to act within the confines of constitutional power, not to exploit statutory authority for personal retaliation.

Justice Sathish Kumar summarized the ruling thus:
“The orders passed by the learned Judge are nothing but clear abuse of process of law with a motive.”

Both the suo motu orders were quashed. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was directed to be released forthwith, and connected miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025