Externment cannot be used to suppress democratic dissent or peaceful agitations against government policies.

The Petitioner, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), challenged an externment order dated December 3, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chembur, and a subsequent appellate order dated March 27, 2026.

The externment was predicated on several FIRs registered against the Petitioner, primarily under Section 188 of the IPC, for organizing agitations, morchas, and dharnas against certain decisions of the Government of India without police permission.

The State contended that the Petitioner’s acts caused alarm and danger to public property and that slogans were raised despite police refusal of permission.

1. Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act was based on valid subjective satisfaction and sufficient material.

2. Whether organizing political agitations and violating Section 188 IPC constitutes sufficient grounds for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.

3. Whether the externment order violated the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, which permits externment only if a person's movements cause alarm, danger, or harm to person/property, or if they are engaged in specific IPC offenses involving force or violence where witnesses are unwilling to testify.

The Supreme Court precedent in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that externment is an extraordinary measure depriving a citizen of fundamental rights.

The principles from Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, holding that state power cannot be used to suppress legitimate democratic grievances.

Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat regarding the illegality of externing citizens for protesting government decisions.

The Court found that the subjective satisfaction of the authorities was vitiated because there was no material evidence on record to prove the Petitioner’s acts caused alarm or danger to person or property as required by Section 56(1)(a).

The allegations in the FIRs were restricted to organizing political protests and raising slogans without permission, which constitutes an offense under Section 188 IPC (carrying a maximum punishment of one month); the Court held this cannot be a legal ground for an externment order.

The Court determined the action was mala fide, as the state used an extraordinary preventive measure to penalize the Petitioner for exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Court emphasized that since the protests were directed at government decisions, the externment restricted the Petitioner's right to live with dignity and move freely without appropriate legal justification.

Political dissent and minor IPC violations do not satisfy the stringent requirements of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Externment Order dated December 3, 2025, and the Appellate Order dated March 27, 2026.