Bombay High Court Quashes Externment of SDPI Secretary Over Protest Slogans
Justice Madhav Jamdar sets aside externment orders against an SDPI office-bearer, holding that leading morchas against Union government decisions cannot justify externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the externment of Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that his participation in agitations against decisions of the Union Government did not amount to conduct causing alarm, danger or harm within the meaning of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, sitting singly in the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, quashing an externment order dated December 3, 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai, and an appellate order dated March 27, 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, that had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.
An SDPI Office-Bearer Challenges His Externment
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court against Externment Order No. 472/C/43 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, and the subsequent order in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. Ms. Payoshi Roy, appearing for the petitioner, argued that he belongs to the SDPI, a party registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and serves as its Secretary.
She submitted that the FIRs cited in the impugned orders were registered mainly under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of agitations, morchas and dharnas organised by the petitioner and his party against certain decisions taken by the Government of India. She contended that the externment orders, passed under Section 56 1(a) and 1(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, lacked subjective satisfaction and were mala fide.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, learned APP for the State, relied on the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s affidavit dated June 30, 2026 and the reasons recorded in the impugned orders. She pointed to slogans raised by the petitioner and fellow protesters, and argued that the agitations were held without police permission, making the action lawful.
What Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act Requires
Section 56 1(a) permits externment where the movements or acts of a person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Section 56 1(b) applies where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is engaged, or about to be engaged, in an offence involving force or violence, or an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC. The Court noted these are offences against the human body, and that the externment order in this case invoked both limbs.
The Bench Finds No Material to Support Subjective Satisfaction
Justice Jamdar recorded that it was an admitted position that the petitioner, as SDPI Secretary, had arranged agitations, morchas and dharnas over certain decisions of the Government of India. Examining the record, the Court held there was “no material on record” to show that his movements or acts were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.
The FIRs referred to in the orders alleged only that the petitioner had organised protests without police permission, an offence under Section 188 of the IPC carrying a maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. The Court held this could not, by itself, form the basis for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.
The judgment observed that while the externment proposal recorded that the petitioner’s movements were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm, the FIRs underlying that proposal disclosed only that he had organised agitations against Union Government decisions and raised slogans. The Court held the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities was “without any material to support the same,” and was therefore vitiated. It also found substance in the submission that the action was mala fide.
Reliance on Anuradha Bhasin and the Gujarat High Court
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, and on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat, decided on August 26, 2021. Justice Jamdar recorded that the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, in the context of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that the power under that provision cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, grievance, or the exercise of democratic rights.
The Gujarat High Court in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui, dealing with a similar externment against a person protesting a Union Government decision, had held that a citizen cannot be externed merely for raising grievances against the Government, and set aside that order. Justice Jamdar held these observations were “squarely applicable to the present case.”
The Court described externment as an “extraordinary measure,” citing Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99, for the position that such an order deprives a citizen of the fundamental right of free movement throughout India. It held that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee not only freedom of speech and expression but also the right to live with dignity, and that externing the petitioner merely for opposing Government decisions affected both rights.
Order
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the Externment Order No. 472/C/43 dated December 3, 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai, and the order dated March 27, 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025.