A Deputy Commissioner of Police lacks authority to order externment under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalaburagi, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 27 October 2025 and passed an externment order against him on 12 November 2025.

The petitioner challenged both measures, contending, among other things, that the Deputy Commissioner of Police lacked authority under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to order externment.

He also alleged that his reply dated 24 September 2025 had not been considered.

The State defended the order, describing the petitioner as a habitual offender.

The Court noted that the impugned externment order had been passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police was a competent authority under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to pass the externment order.

Whether the externment order should be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

The Court considered Sections 2(10), 7–11, 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and Sections 14–17 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 104096 of 2026, which interpreted Section 55 as identifying the Commissioner of Police in the specified commissionerate areas and, in other areas, the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government.

The provision does not permit the statutory authorities named by the legislature to be replaced by another authority through executive delegation.

The Court found that the externment order was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, not by an authority identified as competent under Section 55.

Applying the statutory interpretation in Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar, it held that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not fall within the categories of authorities empowered to exercise the externment power.

The order therefore suffered from a jurisdictional defect, making it unnecessary to determine the petitioner’s other grounds.

The writ petition was allowed; no order was made as to costs.