The Apex Court, while quashing an externment order, observed that an individual’s fundamental right to reside anywhere or move freely across the country cannot be taken away on unsatisfactory grounds.
In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, had passed an externment order (keeping away from familiar environment where the criminal activities had been committed by an individual) against a journalist and directed him to leave the city of Amravati and not return for one year.
The externment order had been passed in compliance to Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which specifically deals with removal of individuals who’ve been anticipated to commit crime.
The journalist contended before the Supreme Court that after it came to his knowledge that the public money distributed at Madrasas were being misappropriated, he had filed complaints before the government. Further, in 2017, he requested the Collector to investigate upon this issue and later, filed a PIL as well.
Thereafter, the externment proceedings had been initiated against him on the grounds that his movement and acts were of calculated nature to cause harm; anticipated that his acts might be prejudicial to maintenance of public order; and outbreak of epidemic had been as a result of continued residence of an immigrant.
The bench observed that the drastic action of passing externment orders ought to be adopted in exceptional circumstances only, and with an aim to prevent breach of public tranquility and peace.
However, the FIRs lodged against the appellant had been vindictive and retaliatory in nature, and the Madarasa people had been influenced to file FIRs merely to teach the appellant a lessor for stifling his voice.
The bench quashed the externment order and observed that the allegations raised against the appellant were doubtful in nature.
Leave a Reply