Externment may be ordered preventively on overall criminal material despite acquittals and absence of convictions.

The Superintendent of Police, Korba submitted a report dated 22 November 2025 alleging that the petitioner had been involved in assault, intimidation, rioting, loot, excise-related offences and other criminal activities since 2019, creating fear and insecurity in the locality.

Proceedings were initiated under Sections 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, and the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that several cases relied upon by the authorities had ended in acquittal or compromise, while other cases were pending investigation or trial.

He also alleged that, although ten witnesses had been cited, only one witness was examined and that he was not given an effective opportunity to examine defence witnesses.

By order dated 26 February 2026, the District Magistrate directed the petitioner’s externment from Korba and several adjoining districts for one year, holding that his continued presence was prejudicial to public peace and safety.

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed by the State Government on 9 July 2026. He thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of both orders.

Whether the externment order was invalid for violating the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the principles of natural justice, including the alleged denial of an effective opportunity to lead defence evidence?

Whether externment could be ordered despite the absence of convictions against the petitioner, in view of the acquittals, compromises and pendency of other criminal cases?

Whether the extent and duration of the externment order—covering Korba and several adjoining districts for one year—were arbitrary, disproportionate or unsupported by the material on record?

The Court primarily applied Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, which authorises the District Magistrate to direct the removal of a person where his movements or acts cause or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is engaged or about to engage in offences involving force, violence or specified offences, particularly where witnesses are unwilling to testify publicly due to apprehension for their safety.

The Court also referred to Section 6, which separately concerns removal of persons convicted of specified offences; consequently, the preventive power under Section 5 is distinct from the conviction-based power under Section 6.

The Court further considered the statutory requirement of a show-cause opportunity and the preventive, rather than punitive, character of externment proceedings.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the police report contained allegations of continuing criminal conduct, intimidation and creation of fear in the locality, and that preventive proceedings had previously been taken against the petitioner without improvement in his conduct.

The District Magistrate had issued a show-cause notice, considered the petitioner’s reply and documents, and relied upon the testimony that the petitioner was actively involved in crime and had little regard for the law.

Although several cases had ended in acquittal or compromise and others remained pending, the Court held that the externment decision was based on the overall material concerning the petitioner’s conduct and the perceived threat to public peace, rather than on convictions alone.

The Court treated the proceedings as preventive and held that the authorities had duly considered the petitioner’s objections.

In view of the number of criminal cases, prior preventive actions and the finding that the petitioner’s unrestricted presence was dangerous to public order, the Court found no procedural illegality, perversity or disproportionality in the orders.

It held that the District Magistrate had followed the prescribed procedure under the 1990 Act, that the absence of convictions and the existence of acquittals did not by themselves invalidate preventive externment under Section 5, and that the materials justified the petitioner’s removal in the interest of public peace and safety.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the externment order dated 26 February 2026 and the appellate order dated 9 July 2026 were left undisturbed.