Delhi HC raps externment order on man for excise, gambling offences

New DelhiThe Delhi High Court has held that an externment order, based solely on minor excise or gambling cases without material demonstrating that the individual is “desperate and dangerous,” violates the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedoms

New Delhi

A bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav further held that an externment order is an extraordinary measure that curtails a citizen’s fundamental right to unrestricted movement, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. (Representative photo)

The Delhi High Court has held that an externment order, based solely on minor excise or gambling cases without material demonstrating that the individual is “desperate and dangerous,” violates the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedoms.

A bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav further held that an externment order is an extraordinary measure that curtails a citizen’s fundamental right to unrestricted movement, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

“In the absence of any material demonstrating that the petitioner is a ‘desperate and dangerous’ individual or that witnesses are terrified to come forward, passing an externment order on the basis of minor excise or gambling cases constitutes an arbitrary and mechanical exercise of power, infringing upon the petitioner’s rights to personal liberty and fundamental freedoms,” a bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said in an order released on Monday.

The court set aside an externment order on September 17, while hearing a man’s petition challenging the externment order passed by the additional deputy commissioner of police under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, on March 12 and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal on April 29.

In his petition, the man contended that the orders were wholly illegal and improper, since the same could not have been passed merely on the basis of two cases under the Delhi Police Act and two cases under the Delhi Excise Act.

The police opposed the petition, asserting that no interference is called for, since he had been held by two authorities.

The court, however, observed that such an order could be passed only if the authorities were satisfied that the person’s movements or acts were causing, or were calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm to any person or property; or that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person was engaged, or was about to engage, in the commission of specified offences involving force or violence or offences covered under the relevant provisions of law.

The court found that there was no documentary or oral material to substantiate the invocation of these statutory provisions.