Facts
The Superintendent of Police, Yadgir, passed an externment order dated 25 April 2026 directing the petitioner’s removal from Yadgir District to Dharwad District.
Source reference: p. 2; p. 5The petitioner challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Superintendent of Police lacked authority under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
Source reference: p. 2–3The State defended the order, asserting that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that the authority had acted within Sections 55 and 56 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 4The High Court considered a coordinate Bench decision addressing the scope of Section 55.
Source reference: p. 5–6Issues
Whether the Superintendent of Police was competent under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to pass the externment order against the petitioner
Source reference: p. 3; p. 5–7Law Applied
Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, 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 having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government through notification in the Official Gazette.
Source reference: p. 5–6The statutory categories do not include a Superintendent of Police, who cannot be substituted for an authority specified by the legislature through executive delegation.
Source reference: p. 5–6The Court relied on Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 104096 of 2026, decided on 24 August 2026, which interpreted Section 55 in those terms.
Source reference: p. 3; p. 5–6Reasoning
The impugned order was undisputedly made by the Superintendent of Police, Yadgir.
Source reference: p. 5Applying Section 55 and the coordinate Bench’s interpretation, the Court held that the Superintendent of Police did not fall within either category of authority empowered to order externment.
Source reference: p. 5–7The petitioner’s alleged habitual offending did not cure that lack of statutory jurisdiction; the Court set aside the order on that ground without deciding the merits of the allegations.
Source reference: p. 4; p. 7Holding
The Court held that the Superintendent of Police lacked jurisdiction to pass the externment order under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
It allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 25 April 2026, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 7Acts & Sections Cited
12 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.8
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20234
Original Court PDF
CHANDRASHEKARvsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
