Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Not Sufficient Ground For Externment; It Is An Extraordinary Measure To Be Used Sparingly: Karnataka High Court

"An order of externment takes away the fundamental right of a citizen. Merely because crimes are pending against a person, he does not become a convict unless he is convicted, therefore, all the rigour of the statute must be complied with before any order of externment can be passed." High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, in a significant ruling, held that the mere pendency of criminal cases or the existence of criminal antecedents cannot be made the sole basis for passing an externment order.

A single-judge bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that externment is an extraordinary measure that must be resorted to sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances, as it directly infringes upon the fundamental right of free movement guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, a 32-year-old businessman, challenged an externment order dated June 24, 2026, passed by the Superintendent of Police and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi. The authorities had initiated the proceedings based on the petitioner's involvement in six cases. Records indicated that in five cases involving the Karnataka Police Act, the petitioner had pleaded guilty and paid the fine, while in a case under Section 307 of the IPC, he had been acquitted by the Sessions Court in 2019.

Court Evaluates Power Of Externment Under Karnataka Police Act

The primary question before the court was whether the respondents could pass an externment order under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act when no criminal proceedings were currently pending against the petitioner. The court was also called upon to determine whether the procedural safeguards under Section 58 of the Act, which mandate a reasonable opportunity of hearing, were strictly followed by the executive authorities.

The court noted that Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, which deal with the removal of persons about to commit offences or those convicted of certain offences, must be interpreted strictly. The bench emphasized that for these provisions to be invoked, there must be objective material on record to suggest that the movements or acts of a person are causing alarm, danger, or harm to person or property.

Mere Pendency Of Cases No Ground For Drastic Measures - Externment Requires Subjective Satisfaction Based On Objective Material

The Court observed that the power of externment is a preventive measure and not a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. It held that if a person is involved in illegal activities, the appropriate course is to proceed under relevant penal laws rather than resorting to the drastic step of removing them from their place of residence without cogent reasons.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra (2022), noting that an order of externment makes serious inroads into the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The court reiterated that such restrictions must stand the test of reasonableness as contemplated under Article 19(5).

"Subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment. The authority must record specific reasons indicating a threat to public peace and order, and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence due to fear."

Procedural Safeguards Are The Lifeblood Of Liberty - Authorities Admonished For Cavalier Exercise Of Power

The Court highlighted that Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act mandates that the officer must inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations and provide a reasonable opportunity to tender an explanation. In the present case, the court found that the authorities had passed the order in a "casual and cavalier manner" without considering the petitioner's reply or the fact that he was no longer involved in any active litigation.

Justice Krishna Kumar remarked that the executive cannot treat its office as a "personal fiefdom" and misuse the power conferred under the Act. The court expressed shock at the manner in which show-cause notices were issued as a mere formality, without real-time opportunity for the petitioner to defend his rights.

"Procedural safeguards are the life blood of liberty, which cannot be treated or taken away in the manner that it is done in the case at hand. The act of the respondent is undoubtedly contrary to the statute and in blissful ignorance of the law."

The Court concluded that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and lacked independent reasoning to justify the necessity of externment. It observed that the respondents failed to appreciate that as on the date of the order, no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the externment order passed by the Kalaburagi authorities.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated June 24, 2026. While quashing the order, the bench reserved liberty to the State to proceed against the petitioner in the future strictly in accordance with the law, should circumstances so warrant.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2026