Karnataka High Court quashes externment over closed matka cases, finding no material to justify curbing a man’s freedom of movement

The Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raichur, ordered Maheboob’s externment from Shaktinagar, Raichur, to the limits of Venur Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

The order relied on five cases registered against him under Section 78(3) of the Act between 2022 and 2025; he had paid fines in those cases, and none was pending when the externment order was made.

Maheboob challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Although the petition’s prayer refers to an order dated 30 December 2025, the Court identified the impugned order as dated 24 July 2026 and set aside that order.

1. Whether the externment order was supported by material and the satisfaction required under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

2. Whether the order’s deficiencies—including reliance on allegations unsupported by the record and irrelevant IPC provisions—showed non-application of mind and rendered the externment unjustified.

Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 permits externment only when the statutory grounds are established: relevantly, that a person’s movements or acts are causing or likely to cause alarm, danger or harm, or that there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is engaged or about to engage in specified offences, subject to the statutory conditions.

The authority’s subjective satisfaction must rest on objective material.

Externment is an extraordinary measure affecting the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), and must be used sparingly and consistently with Article 19(5).

In Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 14 SCC 707, the Supreme Court held that the existence of multiple cases alone does not justify externment; judicial review may examine whether material existed to support the authority’s satisfaction and whether relevant material was considered.

Section 60 of the Karnataka Police Act permits judicial scrutiny, among other grounds, where there was no material on which the order could have been based.

The five cases cited concerned Section 78(3) of the Act and had concluded after payment of fines; they did not, without more, establish the statutory grounds for externment.

The order referred to IPC Sections 324 and 504 despite no such allegations against the petitioner, asserted that he had cheated the public without identifying supporting material, and mentioned police advice without stating when or how it was given.

It also did not show a basis for anticipating danger or harm, or for believing that the petitioner was engaged or about to engage in the specified offences.

The Court concluded that the order lacked the required satisfaction and disclosed non-application of mind.

The writ petition was allowed, and the externment order dated 24 July 2026 was set aside, with no order as to costs.