Summary
The Court quashed a two-year externment order from Jalna district. The authority ignored a relevant Magistrate’s order, relied on stale offences without a live connection to present necessity, and lacked material satisfying the invoked grounds. It also failed to show why the maximum duration was necessary. Externment, an exceptional restriction on free movement, required objective material, application of mind and a reasonable duration.
Issues
- Whether the material and recorded satisfaction justified externment under Section 56(1)(a)-(b).
- Whether imposing the maximum two-year period without specific consideration of necessity was valid.
Provisions considered
- Section 56(1)(a)-(b), Maharashtra Police Act, 1951Objective material had to support the statutory grounds and subjective satisfaction, including witness apprehension where clause (b) was invoked. (¶¶ 5-7, 10-11)
- Section 58, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951The two-year ceiling did not dispense with assessment of the appropriate duration or satisfaction explaining the need for the maximum period. (¶ 13)
- Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(5), Constitution of IndiaExternment restricted free movement and had to satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness. (¶¶ 4, 6-7, 12-14)
Held
- Externment is extraordinary and should be used sparingly. Multiple registered offences alone do not establish clause (b); objective material must support the required belief and the conclusion that witnesses are unwilling to testify because of apprehension for safety or property. (¶ 5-7)
- An elaborate judicial-style judgment is unnecessary, but the authority must demonstrate application of mind. Review can examine absence of material, omission of relevant material, mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness, while avoiding reassessment of sufficiency or substitution of another possible view. (¶ 10)
- The authority ignored the Magistrate’s rejection of preventive detention based on the same offences. No subsequent objectionable activity was shown, the older cases lacked a live link to externment necessity, and the required material concerning the recent cases and witness unwillingness was absent. The invoked grounds were not established on this record. (¶ 8-12)
- A maximum two-year order required satisfaction, based on objective assessment, that this duration was necessary. The absence of any such consideration independently imposed an unreasonable restriction. The externment order and High Court judgment were quashed, and the appeal allowed. (¶ 13-16)
Result
Appeal allowed; externment order and High Court judgment quashed and set aside.