Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order

"Mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, without any other supporting material or without any other cogent or valid reasons, could not have been made the basis to pass an externment order." Karnataka High Court has held that the mere registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot simplicitor form the basis for externing a citizen from a district in the absence of tangible material demonstrating that their presence poses a threat to public peace or that witnesses are unwilling to depose against them out of fear.

 Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar at the Kalaburagi Bench quashed an externment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raichur, emphasizing that externment is an extraordinary administrative measure that directly curtails the fundamental right to free movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, a 21-year-old street fruit vendor residing in Raichur, was subjected to externment proceedings following a proposal submitted by the Sadar Bazar Police Station. Acting on the recommendation, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a show-cause notice and subsequently passed an externment order dated July 24, 2026, directing his removal from Raichur District primarily relying on pending criminal cases. Aggrieved by the order taking away his liberty, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition filed by his wife under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the mere pendency of criminal cases, without independent objective material establishing danger to public order or witness intimidation, justifies the invocation of externment powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The Court was also called upon to examine whether the impugned order satisfied the constitutional test of reasonableness and procedural fairness.

Externment An Extraordinary Measure Infringing Fundamental Rights

Examining the statutory framework of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the High Court observed that the power of externment conferred under Section 55 is an extraordinary preventive measure that must be exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with statutory safeguards. The Court noted that an order of externment makes serious inroads into personal liberty and prevents a citizen from residing in their own home or earning a livelihood, thereby requiring strict adherence to the test of reasonableness under Article 19(5) of the Constitution.

Precedents Establish Strict Subjective Satisfaction Required

Relying upon the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) and coordinate bench decisions in Sachin M.R. v. State of Karnataka and Rachappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that the competent authority must record subjective satisfaction based on objective, tangible material on record. The bench underlined that an authority cannot pass an externment order casually or in a cavalier manner without demonstrating a live link between the past offences and the immediate necessity of removal.

"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."

Pendency Of Prosecution Cannot Be Substituted By Preventive Removal

The Court held that preventive externment proceedings cannot be resorted to as an easy substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. Where criminal law is already set in motion and an individual is facing trial before a competent court, the mere pendency of such prosecutions does not establish that the public is terrorized or that witnesses refuse to come forward. Merely because criminal cases are pending against an individual, they do not become a convict, and statutory rigours cannot be blissfully bypassed by executive authorities.

Impugned Raichur SDM Order Suffers From Total Non-Application Of Mind

Perusing the impugned order passed by the Raichur Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the High Court found that the authority had failed to disclose any independent material showing that the petitioner's movements caused widespread alarm, danger, or harm to person or property. The Court noted that the administrative order was conspicuously silent on whether any witness felt apprehensive about deposing in open court, thereby rendering the order unsustainable due to complete absence of cogent reasons and non-application of mind.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the externment order dated July 24, 2026, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not indulge in any illegal activities under any circumstances whatsoever. The Court reaffirmed that while executive authorities retain the liberty to proceed in the future if circumstances warrant, the draconian power of externment can never be weaponized purely on the basis of pending FIRs without strict compliance with the rule of law.

Date of Decision: 19th August 2026