Fundamental Right To Reside Anywhere In/Move Throughout The Country Cannot Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order Against Journalist

While quashing an externment order passed against a journalist, the Supreme Court observed that a person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds.

The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that 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, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, had passed an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing the journalist Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah not to enter or return to Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for a period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of Amravati City and/or Amravati Rural District. Before the Apex Court, Khan contended that, after he came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in Amravati District, he filed complaints before the Government. That  on 13th October, 2017, he requested the Collector as also the police to investigate misappropriation of Government grants by Madrasas in collusion with Government officials. That he also filed a public interest litigation before the High Court in this regard. That, thereafter externment proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in the impugned Externment order. 

Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act deals with removal of persons about to commit offence. The grounds on which such an order can be passed are:

1. If the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or  that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property,
2. That there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980,
3. That an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or such prejudicial act,] or the outbreak or spread of such disease.

"33...it is patently clear that Sections 56 to 59 of the Act 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. 34. 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.", the court observed referring to some judgments in this regard.

The court observed that the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the journalist 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, the court said.

"40. 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. Mr. Patil 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 18 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.", the bench observed while quashing the externment order.

Advocate Himanshu Chaubey argued the case for the petitioner.

Case: Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police ; CrA 912 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 404
Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Click here to Read/Download Judgment