Karnataka High Court sets aside externment order, holding Deputy Commissioner of Police lacked authority to issue it under the Karnataka Police Act.

The petitioner challenged an externment order dated 28 August 2026 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi.

Although an alternate remedy was available under the Karnataka Police Act, the petitioner sought writ relief on the ground that respondent No. 2 lacked statutory authority to make the order.

The State opposed the petition, supporting the order and describing the petitioner as a habitual offender.

Whether respondent No. 2 was competent under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to pass the externment order

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.

Under the interpretation of Section 55 adopted from Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 104096 of 2026, dated 24 August 2026, the competent authority is the Commissioner in the specified commissionerate areas; elsewhere, it is the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government. An authority not falling within those statutory categories cannot be substituted by executive action.

The impugned order was admittedly made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, not by an authority identified as competent under Section 55.

Applying the statutory interpretation in Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar, the Court held that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the externment order. The petitioner’s alleged habitual offending did not cure that lack of competence.

It set aside the order dated 28 August 2026, with no order as to costs.