Police superintendents cannot exercise externment powers under Karnataka Police Act, Karnataka High Court rules

The petitioner challenged an externment order dated 12 August 2026, made by the Superintendent of Police and Special Executive Magistrate, Ballari, under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

He sought to have the order quashed on the ground that the Superintendent of Police lacked jurisdiction to exercise that power.

The State relied on a notification dated 18 November 2025, which purported to confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act on the Superintendent of Police.

1. Whether a Superintendent of Police is an authority competent to exercise powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

2. Whether the notification dated 18 November 2025 could validly confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act on the Superintendent of Police, and whether the externment order based on that authority was sustainable

Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, vests the relevant power in the Commissioner in areas where a Commissioner has been appointed; elsewhere, the Government may extend the provision by Gazette notification to the jurisdictional District Magistrate or a specially empowered Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Section 56 identifies the Commissioner, District Magistrate, and specially empowered Sub-Divisional Magistrate as authorities who may direct removal in the circumstances specified by that section.

Where a statute specifies the authority and manner for exercising a power, an executive notification cannot confer that power on an authority outside the statutory class.

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358, and Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 363, concerning compliance with the statutorily prescribed manner and authority; it also cited Sangeeta Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 1991 SC 772, on the limits of executive instructions and notifications, and Sri Kedar Nath v. Mool Chand, AIR 1953 All 62, on the meaning of a statutory designation of authority.

The Court read Sections 55 and 56 as expressly identifying the authorities competent to make removal or externment orders.

Section 55’s provision for a Government notification did not permit the Government to substitute a Superintendent of Police for the District Magistrate or specially empowered Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Because the Superintendent of Police did not fall within the statutory categories, the notification could not cure the absence of jurisdiction, and the externment order made by that officer was consequently unsustainable.

The Court clarified that the competent statutory authority remained free to take action in accordance with law.