Superintendent of Police Has No Jurisdiction to Pass Externment Orders Under Section 55, Karnataka Police Act: Dharwad Bench

The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has quashed an externment order, holding that Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 does not authorise a Superintendent of Police to exercise externment powers even under a Government notification.

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, in a writ petition filed by Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar, a resident of Nippani in Belagavi district, has declared a Home Department notification dated 18 November 2025 non-est and a nullity to the extent it purported to confer externment powers on the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi. Sitting singly, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum quashed the consequential order of externment dated 28 April 2026 passed by the Superintendent of Police. The court held that Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 identifies the competent authorities with precision and that an executive notification cannot substitute a Superintendent of Police for a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the only officers the statute permits to exercise that power outside Bangalore.

The Dispute Before the Court

Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar, aged 54, a daily labourer from Vadar Galli, Akkol, challenged two things: first, the Home Department notification bearing No. HD 520 SST 2025 dated 18 November 2025, issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department (Law and Order); and second, the externment order dated 28 April 2026 passed against him by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, acting as Special Executive Magistrate.

The petitioner was represented by Sri V.S. Teli. Several other advocates — Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, Sri Ram P. Ghorpade, Sri Anand R. Kolli, and Sri Amruth V. Jois — appeared in connected matters raising the same principal question. The State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Sri Sharad V. Magadum.

The notification in question had two parts. The first purported to exercise powers under Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The second purported to appoint Additional District Magistrates and Special Executive Magistrates and, through that route, to confer on the Superintendent of Police the power to exercise jurisdiction under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

What Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 Provide

Section 55 of the Act empowers specified officers to direct a person whose movements are causing alarm or danger, or who is about to commit a serious offence, to remove himself from a specified area when witnesses are unwilling to depose publicly. The provision expressly names the Commissioner as the competent authority within Bangalore and areas where a Commissioner has been appointed under Section 7. In all other areas, the provision may be extended by the Government through a notification in the Official Gazette, but only to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf.

Section 56 addresses the removal of persons convicted of certain offences. That provision names the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government. Neither section mentions the Superintendent of Police.

Two Independent Grounds: No Gazette Publication, and No Statutory Competence

The court identified two distinct grounds on which the notification could not stand, and made clear that either ground alone was sufficient.

First ground — absence of Gazette publication. Section 55 expressly requires that any extension of the provision to areas outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction must be made by notification in the Official Gazette. On a specific query from the court, the Additional Government Advocate fairly conceded that the notification dated 18 November 2025 had not been published in the Official Gazette. The court held that a statutory notification required by the parent enactment to be Gazette-published acquires legal efficacy only upon such publication. The omission was not a procedural irregularity; it went to the root of the notification's validity.

Second ground — inherent lack of statutory competence. The court then went further, addressing what it described as the more fundamental question: whether even a properly Gazette-published notification could validly designate a Superintendent of Police as the competent authority under Section 55. The answer, in the court's view, was emphatically no.

The bench reasoned that Section 55 does not confer on the Government an unrestricted discretion to select any authority. The legislature has drawn a precise statutory classification — the Commissioner in notified areas, and the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate elsewhere. The Superintendent of Police does not fall within either category. The office cannot be equated with that of a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and the statutory designation cannot be widened by executive action.

The court emphasised that executive instructions, circulars, or notifications may supplement statutory rules where there is a legislative gap, but they cannot override or run contrary to express statutory provisions. The power to extend Section 55 is itself circumscribed by the statute, and even a Gazette notification cannot cure an inherent lack of statutory competence.

Precedents Applied

Justice Magadum drew on three decisions. In State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358, the Supreme Court held that where a statute prescribes both the manner of exercise of power and the authority to exercise it, any departure by an unauthorised person renders the act invalid. The same principle was affirmed in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 363. In Sangeeta Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 1991 SC 772, the Supreme Court reiterated that executive instructions cannot amend, supersede, or contradict express statutory provisions.

The court also referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Sri Kedar Nath v. Mool Chand, AIR 1953 All 62, for the proposition that the statutory description of an authority cannot be enlarged by an executive notification to include an officer who does not fall within the class contemplated by the legislature.

The Court's Conclusion on Jurisdiction

Applying these principles to Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the bench concluded that the Superintendent of Police — not being a Commissioner, District Magistrate, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate — is not a competent authority, and any externment order passed by such officer is without jurisdiction. The second part of the notification dated 18 November 2025, insofar as it purported to confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 upon the Superintendent of Police, was declared contrary to the express mandate of Section 55 and therefore a nullity. All consequential proceedings founded on that exercise of jurisdiction were held unsustainable.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The court made the following specific directions:

• The notification dated 18 November 2025 (No. HD 520 SST 2025) is declared non-est and a nullity insofar as its second part purports to confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 upon the Superintendent of Police.
• The order of externment dated 28 April 2026 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi (respondent No. 3), is quashed.
• The court clarified that the order does not preclude the competent statutory authority from taking such action as may be permissible in law, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.