Order of Externment under Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 Vitiated by Staleness and Lack of Proximity

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner meets the statutory definition of an "anti-social element" under Section 2(b) read with Section 2(f) of the BCC Act, 2024.

The court held

The Court held that the order was a nullity as the petitioner did not statutory qualify as an "anti-social element".

It also directed

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 20.03.2026, directing the State to pay ₹1,00,000 in compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation costs, to be recovered from erring officials.

01Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, challenged an order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the District Magistrate (DM), Nalanda, under Section 3(3) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (BCC Act).

pp. 1-2

The DM declared the petitioner an "anti-social element" based on six criminal cases registered between 2016 and 2021 and a Sanha (police diary entry) dated 19.01.2026.

¶ 4

The order required the petitioner to mark his attendance at Silao Police Station every Monday and Friday for one month to prevent potential law and order breaches during upcoming festivals.

¶ 2, 5

The petitioner contended that no cases were filed against him in the 24 months preceding the action and that he had not been convicted in any case.

¶ 6, 27

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner meets the statutory definition of an "anti-social element" under Section 2(b) read with Section 2(f) of the BCC Act, 2024.

¶ 18-21

ii.2. Whether the DM’s order lacked application of mind and failed the test of "public order" as distinguished from "law and order".

¶ 22-26, 29

iii.3. Whether the procedural haste and choice of reporting station invalidated the externment order.

¶ 35, 39-40

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the definitions under Section 2(b), 2(f), and 2(g) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024, which require at least two police reports showing involvement in specific offences within the 24 months preceding the action to qualify a person as an "anti-social element".

¶ 18-21

It relied on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Arjun v. State of Maharashtra to distinguish between "law and order" (individual infractions) and "public order" (community-wide disturbance).

p. 14, 15

It applied Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to reputation and personal liberty, citing Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India.

p. 31

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 7

Public Gambling Act, 1867 Section 11

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 107 Section 379 Section 406 Section 411 Section 420

04Reasoning

The Court found the DM’s order legally unsustainable as it failed the "24-month rule" established in Section 2(f); the petitioner’s last criminal case was in 2021, far beyond the two-year window required for commencement of action in 2026.

¶ 21

The DM acted "mechanically," relying on a Sanha and stale cases without proving a recent threat to the "even tempo of life" (Public Order).

¶ 24, 26

The Court noted extreme procedural haste, where reports from four levels of police hierarchy were generated and forwarded on the same day (19.01.2026), indicating a lack of independent verification or subjective satisfaction.

¶ 38-39

Requiring the petitioner to report to a station 20km away instead of his local station violated Rule 6 of the Bihar Control of Crime Rules, 1978.

¶ 35