Karnataka HC sets aside externment order, ruling Deputy Commissioner of Police lacked authority to issue it under the Police Act, 1963.

The petitioner challenged an externment order dated 14 February 2026 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi.

He argued that the officer lacked authority under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

The State supported the order, contending that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that the statutory conditions for externment were met.

The Court considered the challenge at the preliminary-hearing stage

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) was competent under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to make the externment order

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

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

Relying on the coordinate Bench decision in Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 104096/2026, it applied the rule that Section 55 identifies the authorities competent to exercise the externment power: the Commissioner in the areas specified by the provision, and, in other areas, the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, subject to the statutory requirements.

A Superintendent of Police cannot be substituted for those designated authorities by executive action.

The impugned order was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, rather than by an authority competent under Section 55 as construed in Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar.

Applying that statutory limitation, the Court held that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction.

The State’s assertion that the petitioner was a habitual offender did not cure the authority’s lack of competence.

It set aside the order dated 14 February 2026; there was no order as to costs.