Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Externment order – The State Government introduced a scheme for the upliftment of the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children – The State announced the disbursement of grants to 33 Madrasas of Amravati District for the Financial Year 2014-2015 – Appellant came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in the said District – Pursuant thereto, various complaints were made – The appellant requested the Collector as also the police to investigate misappropriation of Government grants by Madrasas in collusion with Government officials – In retaliation, affected persons filed complaints against the Appellant u/ss.384, 452, 294, 506(B), 34 IPC – The appellant also filed a Public Interest Litigation – Thereafter, appellant received a notice u/s. 56(1)(a)(b) of 1951 Act and externment proceedings were initiated against the appellant by Police – By an order of externment dated 07.05.2018, the appellant was directed not to enter or return to the District for a period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of the District – Held: An externment order may sometimes be necessary for maintenance of law and order – However the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace – In the instant case, it is patently clear that the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the appellant against government officials, some Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs against the appellant – The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice – On perusal of the responses of government authorities to queries raised by the appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance – Thus, the impugned externment order cannot be sustained and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are intended to prevent lawlessness and deal with a class of lawless elements in society who cannot be brought to book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial trial. [Para 33][587-F]
2. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace. In this case, it is patently clear that the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the Appellant against government officials, some Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs against the Appellant. The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice. [Para 34][587-G-H; 588-A]
3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the notices of externment and the impugned externment order based on Crime Nos 344 of 2017, 352 of 2017 registered with Nagpuri Gate Police Station and Crime No.501 of 2017 registered with the Kotwali Police Station in Amravati City are patently arbitrary, mala fide, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. [Para 35][588-B]
4. It is patently clear that pursuant to a complaint dated 14.9.2017 an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District Collector against the Director (previously Deputy Director) of Education, District Planning Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension Officer Sandip Bodhke. The Inquiry Report along with explanation of the officers has been sent to the Chamber Officer of the Minority Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for further action. The Director (previously Deputy Director) of Education, District Planning Officer lodged FIR No.501/2017 dated 13th October 2017 against the Appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, exactly within one month from the date of the Appellant’s complaint against him, in respect of illegalities in relation to disbursal of funds to Madarsas. [Para 37][589-A-C]
5. The deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat, prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint a colour of intense gravity. It been argued that the Appellant had been extorting money under threat of exposing the illegal activities of certain officials and certain Madrasas or educational institutions. Even assuming that there was substance in the allegation, which appears to be doubtful, an order of externment was unwarranted. There was no reason for the complainants who lodged the FIRs to get terrorized by the alleged threats, allegedly meted out by the Appellant, for if those complainants had not indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear. Even otherwise, threat to lodge a complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, more so, when the responses of government authorities to queries raised by the Appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance. A person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds. [Para 40][590C-E]
6. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case, where on the basis of complaints lodged by the Appellants inquiry had been started by the concerned authorities against government officials and educational institutions including the complainants, who lodged the FIRs against the Appellant, the impugned externment order which followed, cannot be sustained. [Para 41][590-F]
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, the State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 372 : [1973] 3 SCR 63; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Salem Hasan Khan (1989) 2 SCC 316 : [1989] 1 SCR
970 – relied on.
Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 7 SCC
330 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 966 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.