Externment order quashed for violating natural justice and lacking objective material establishing a threat to public order.

The Petitioner, a medical practitioner, challenged an externment (Jilabadar) order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg.

The order, issued under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, expelled the Petitioner from Durg and six adjoining districts for one year based on a police report alleging he was a "habitual complainant" and "notorious troublemaker" with five criminal cases registered between 2010 and 2025.

The Petitioner’s statutory appeal was dismissed by the Department of Home on 07.05.2026.

Procedurally, the show-cause notice was served on the Petitioner on 01.01.2026—the same day fixed for his appearance—and witness statements had been recorded prior to this service.

1. Whether the externment proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and mandatory procedural safeguards.

2. Whether the registration of past criminal cases, where no conviction was recorded, constitutes sufficient "reasonable grounds" for externment under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990.

Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, which requires "reasonable grounds" to believe a person is engaged in specific offenses and a finding that witnesses are unwilling to testify due to fear.

The court relied on the precedent in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, which mandated strict observation of statutory safeguards in externment cases.

Principles from Deepak v. State of Maharashtra regarding procedural compliance.

The doctrine in Prem Chand v. Union of India, which established that extraordinary preventive measures cannot be based on vague allegations or mere suspicion.

The Court found the externment order procedurally fatal because the Petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The notice was served at 1:00 PM on the date of the hearing, and evidence was recorded behind the Petitioner's back, precluding his right to cross-examine witnesses or file a reply.

Substantively, the Court observed that the District Magistrate mechanically relied on five cases, three of which were already disposed of, and two of which were pending without any conviction.

The Court reasoned that there was no objective material to prove that witnesses were unwilling to come forward due to fear, a mandatory requirement under Section 5(b).

The allegations were deemed general and omnibus, relating only to "law and order" rather than the higher threshold of "public order" required for such a drastic deprivation of the fundamental right to movement and profession.

The Court quashed and set aside the externment order dated 08.01.2026 and the appellate order dated 07.05.2026. The writ petition was allowed, and the Petitioner was permitted to reside in District Durg and continue his medical practice.