Summary
The Court set aside an externment order against a complainant who had sought information and action over alleged misuse of government grants to educational institutions. The FIRs relied on followed his complaints and queries, which had led to official inquiry. In these special circumstances the externment action was retaliatory, arbitrary and mala fide. Externment is an exceptional preventive measure and cannot restrict movement and residence on flimsy grounds or merely because a person threatens to lodge complaints. The appeal was allowed.
Issues
- Whether the externment action was justified by the material or was retaliatory and mala fide.
- What limits governed the exceptional preventive power of externment.
Provisions considered
- Section 56(1)(a) and (b), Maharashtra Police Act, 1951The exceptional preventive power could not sustain this retaliatory externment based on the circumstances surrounding the FIRs and the appellant’s substantiated complaints. (¶¶ 2, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
Held
- Externment seriously restricts personal liberty and is justified only in exceptional circumstances serving its preventive purpose. Statutory safeguards must be observed. Judicial interference is permissible where the satisfaction is perverse, unsupported or based on misleading material, rather than merely because another view is possible. (¶¶ 28, 29, 33, 34)
- The FIRs followed the appellant’s complaints and information requests against officials and educational institutions. Official responses showed that his concerns had substance and had prompted inquiry. In the circumstances, the externment notices and order were arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable. (¶¶ 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41)
- A threat to lodge a complaint could not by itself justify externment under Section 56, particularly where official information supported the underlying concerns. Freedom to reside and move throughout the country could not be curtailed on flimsy grounds. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41)
- The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the externment order. This disposition concerned externment and did not itself quash the separate pending criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 16, 41, 42)
Result
Appeal allowed; challenged externment order set aside.