Bombay HC Sets Aside Externment of SDPI Member, Holds Political Agitation Cannot Trigger Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar quashed a one-year externment order against Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan, ruling that FIRs for participating in political agitations against government decisions do not satisfy the statutory threshold under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order externing Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburbs for one year, finding that the three FIRs relied upon by the authorities arose entirely from his participation in political agitations against decisions of the Union of India. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, sitting singly in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition on 28 July 2026, holding that none of the underlying offences had the propensity to cause harm or danger to person or property, and that two of the three FIRs were still under investigation when the show cause notice was issued — a defect that the settled legal position treats as fatal to an externment order. The judgment follows two earlier single-judge orders in identical fact situations that had reached the same conclusion.

The Externment Orders Under Challenge

On 3 December 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai passed an order in Externment Case No.469/C/43 directing Khan's externment from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburbs for one year. Khan challenged that order in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The Divisional Commissioner confirmed the order on 18 May 2026 in Appeal No.194 of 2025. Khan then moved the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.2703 of 2026.

The externing authority acted under Section 56(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. That provision allows a competent authority to direct a person's removal from a specified area when the person's movements or acts are causing, or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is engaged or about to be engaged in offences involving force or violence.

What the Show Cause Notice Actually Alleged

The show cause notice rested on three FIRs registered at R.C.F. Police Station. The first, C.R. No.636 of 2024 (dated 6 December 2024), involved an agitation concerning the Babri Masjid at which slogans were raised against certain decisions of the Union of India. A chargesheet had been filed in that matter. The second, C.R. No.180 of 2025 (dated 2 April 2025), alleged that SDPI office bearers and political workers agitated in connection with the Wakf Board Bill that was to be presented in Parliament, in violation of a prohibitory order and after rejection of permission to hold the agitation. The third, C.R. No.457 of 2025 (dated 21 August 2025), concerned an agitation held despite the absence of permission, and was registered under Section 223 and Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Two facts about these FIRs were immediately significant. C.R. No.180 of 2025 and C.R. No.457 of 2025 were both under investigation when the show cause notice was issued — no chargesheets had been filed in either. And the agitation underlying C.R. No.457 of 2025 was conducted jointly by SDPI, the Nationalist Congress Party, and Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray). No externment action was taken against members of the other two political parties.

The State's Justification and Its Infirmities

Mr. Shishir Hiray, Chief Public Prosecutor, argued that externment was warranted because Khan had earlier been a member of the Popular Front of India, a banned organisation, before joining SDPI. He submitted that the slogans raised by Khan could create a rift in society and disturb peace. He urged that the appellate order should not be disturbed.

The court identified three problems with this position. The allegation about PFI membership was not mentioned anywhere in the show cause notice, making it unavailable as a justification for the externment. The claim that the slogans would disturb peace was unsupported by any material on record. And the two FIRs still under investigation at the time the show cause notice was issued could not legally be taken into account.

The Legal Bar on Using Under-Investigation Cases

Khan's counsel, Mr. Ibraheem K.M., relied on a 19 January 2024 judgment of the Bombay High Court in Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No.2805 of 2023). Paragraph 19 of that decision, which Justice Jamdar reproduced, stated: “the crimes which are still under investigation cannot be taken into consideration as depending upon the outcome of the investigation, the investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial.” The court accepted that this settled position applied squarely to C.R. No.180 of 2025 and C.R. No.457 of 2025.

Earlier Orders in Identical Fact Situations

Justice Jamdar noted that the same three FIRs had already formed the basis of an externment order against one Akbar Hussain Sayyed. A learned single judge of the Bombay High Court had set that order aside on 12 March 2026. The single judge had observed in that matter that none of the offences fell within Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, and that the petitioner had been arraigned for disobedience of orders and causing obstruction in a public way by holding agitations — conduct that did not have the propensity to cause harm or danger to person or property. The single judge had held that the measure of externment is extraordinary, and that an order of externment which infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India must be tested against strict statutory compliance.

A second comparable order was passed by the Bombay High Court on 2 July 2026 in Writ Petition No.1700 of 2026, setting aside an externment that had been taken on the same contention and on the basis of the same FIR. That order drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) to the effect that an externment order deprives a citizen of the fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. It further observed, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Anuradha Bhasin, that the power under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — and by extension extraordinary police powers — cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of democratic rights. The Gujarat High Court's decision in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui was also cited, where it was held that a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for raising grievances against the Government.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Jamdar found that the facts in Khan's case were on all fours with those in both earlier orders. All three FIRs arose from agitating against decisions of the Union of India. In the case of C.R. No.457 of 2025, the agitation was a joint action by multiple political parties, yet only Khan and members of SDPI were externed. The allegation about slogans creating social rifts was not backed by any material. The two FIRs that were under investigation at the relevant time could not be pressed into service. And the single FIR where a chargesheet existed involved conduct — raising slogans at an agitation — that did not satisfy Section 56(1)(a)'s requirement of conduct causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.

The court held that the action under Section 56(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which contemplates movements or acts causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, was simply not attracted. Externing a person for opposing government decisions — conduct that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution protect as freedom of speech, expression and dignified life — could not be sustained. The externment was declared totally illegal.

Order

Criminal Writ Petition No.2703 of 2026 was allowed. The order dated 3 December 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai in Externment Case No.469/C/43 was set aside. The order dated 18 May 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Appeal No.194 of 2025 was also set aside.