Supreme Court quashes ex parte externment order passed without notice or hearing

Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside a Raigarh District Magistrate's externment order revived without notice, holding Section 8 hearing mandatory and the reopening jurisdictionless.

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has quashed an externment order that banished a Raigarh resident from his home district for one year, holding that the order was passed behind his back while he was in custody, in breach of the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment on 31 August 2026, allowing the appeal of Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju.

The Court found the District Magistrate had no power to reopen a case he had earlier closed, and that the order failed even on merits because the invoked statutory grounds were not made out. It also faulted the High Court for turning the appellant away to a statutory appeal instead of examining these infirmities.

How a closed externment case was revived

Externment proceedings against the appellant began with a memorandum dated 3 April 2019 from the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, recommending action under Sections 5(a) and (b) of the Adhiniyam. The recommendation rested on the appellant's alleged involvement in ten criminal cases registered between 2009 and 2019. A case was registered on 3 May 2019.

By an order dated 6 October 2025, the District Magistrate closed the case. He recorded that the appellant had been acquitted in the referred cases, that no fresh police report had come after 2019, and that externment based on the 2009–2019 cases was not justified. The appellant was let off with a warning.

Two later developments reopened the controversy. An FIR (Crime No. 117/2023) had been registered under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 over alleged unauthorised colony development. On 30 October 2025, Crime No. 483/2025 was registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act, over a video containing abusive remarks against Baba Guru Ghasidas, a figure revered by the Satnami community. The appellant was arrested the same day.

On a fresh report dated 3 November 2025, the District Magistrate recalled the closure order and passed the ex parte externment order dated 4 November 2025, directing the appellant to remove himself from Raigarh and contiguous districts for one year. The order described him as a habitual offender hazardous to society. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed his writ petition on 22 January 2026, relegating him to the appeal remedy under Section 9.

Section 8 hearing held mandatory

The Court read the statutory scheme and held that notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 8 are conditions precedent for any externment order under Sections 3 to 6. Sub-section (1) requires the District Magistrate to inform the person of the general nature of the material allegations and allow an explanation.

The only exceptions, the Court said, are in sub-section (5), where a person fails to execute a security bond or fails to appear, permitting an ex parte inquiry. Those circumstances were admittedly absent here. An order passed in derogation of these requirements “would stand vitiated and liable to be declared void ab initio.”

The appellant, represented by Mr. Pallav Mongia, argued the order was passed while he was in custody in Crime No. 483/2025 and that he learnt of it only on transfer to District Jail, Bilaspur. The State, through Ms. Ankita Sharma, contended that the order was a reconsideration continuing already initiated proceedings and that a fresh hearing was not needed. The Court rejected the contention, finding neither material nor authority to support dispensing with notice.

Relying on Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, the Court recalled Justice Krishna Iyer's holding that where a statute obligating a hearing affects a fundamental right, failure to comply is fatal and the order is void ab initio.

No power to reopen a closed case

On jurisdiction, the Court held that an administrative authority has no power to review its own order unless the statute empowers it. No such empowering provision was shown. The District Magistrate therefore “exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law.”

Breach of the warning alone could not have authorised reopening the closed case. Once a fresh report arrived, the Magistrate was statutorily obliged to repeat the Section 8 procedure, which he did not.

The Court was “surprised” that the High Court took a hands-off approach in a case of such egregious violation. Citing Godrej Sarah Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, it noted the distinction between entertainability and maintainability of writ petitions and the situations where a writ court can act despite an available statutory remedy. Relegation here reflected a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the High Court.

Order fails on its own merits

Declining to rest on procedure alone, the Court examined the order's substance. It found the invocation of Section 5(b) misconceived. That clause covers offences involving force or violence, or offences under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC, or Sections 506 or 509. The offences alleged against the appellant did not fall within these categories; the video-related allegations corresponded to Chapter XV offences affecting religion.

Assuming the order rested on Section 5(a), the Court held it still failed. That power directly impinges on fundamental freedoms and cannot be exercised as routine or on mere ipse dixit. Multiple criminal cases do not ipso facto justify externment. The order recorded resentment and public outrage but disclosed no material behind that conclusion and no reasons why externment was necessary.

The Court drew on Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, which requires objective material and recorded subjective satisfaction, subject to judicial review for mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The Court also noted that Crime No. 117/2023 had been quashed by the High Court, and that the appellant, an accused in Crime No. 483/2025, was not charged with murder and had been granted bail.

The State's reliance on Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh was set aside as concerning the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to belated Section 9 appeals, with no bearing on the present issues.

Outcome

The Court quashed both the High Court's order and the externment order. It held the appellant free to enter the districts from which he had been externed. It clarified that none of its observations would be treated as findings on the merits of the pending cases in which he figures as an accused. The appeal was allowed and pending applications disposed of.