Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order Against Political Activist for Organising Protest

It is most encouraging to see that while upholding the fundamental right of a citizen to protest, the Bombay High Court, while catching the bull by the horns and coming down heavily on slapping of cases and passing externment orders at the drop of a hat in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical, and latest judgment titled Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2026 and cited in 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305 that was pronounced just recently on July 2, 2026, while quashing the Mumbai Police externment order (which is an order that bans/expels an individual from a locality/district) against a political activist, Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, who is State General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India, minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that merely arranging a morcha or protest against “certain decisions” of the BJP-led government at the Center could not be a ground for externment affecting the person’s fundamental rights.

It was also held explicitly by the Bench orally that police officers are authorities answerable to the public and not functionaries of the ministers.

It was also made crystal clear by the Bombay High Court that the action taken against the petitioner is a mala fide action!

So it was quite ostensible that the externment order was quashed and set aside.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Bombay High Court upheld the fundamental right to protest.
• The Court ruled that organizing a morcha or peaceful protest against government decisions cannot, by itself, justify an externment order.
• The Bench observed that police officers are answerable to the public and are not functionaries of ministers.
• The Court found the action against the petitioner to be mala fide.
• The Mumbai Police externment order was quashed and set aside.

Case Overview

It is pointed out in the “Hindustan Times” newspaper dated July 3, 2026, on this leading case law, mentioning that:

“A single-Judge Bench of Justice Jamdar remarked: ‘Citizens cannot be made slaves of the central government. Police are not servants of the chief minister or the prime minister. They are public servants. Are these cases registered against him because he is from some other party? Let him also switch sides and all such cases will go. Horse-trading is happening across the country. Questioning the basis of the action against Chaudhary, the court underlined that the country has seen many protests recently across the country, including those against the NEET paper leak. ‘Will you pass such orders against them too,’ it asked stating that the petitioner should switch parties to get the FIRs registered against him quashed through the government’s ‘washing machine’. Chaudhary approached HC on March 27, 2026 questioning the order passed on December 3, 2025, externing him from the city.”

High Court Observations on Externment Order and Political Protests

At the very outset, this most bold, brilliant, balanced, and brief judgment authored by the single judge bench comprising the Honorable Mr. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:

“The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai in Externment Order No. 472/C/43 as also the Order dated 27th March 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025.”

Petitioner Contentions Before the Bombay High Court

To put things in perspective, the bench on one hand envisages in para. 3 while dwelling on the petitioner’s version stating that:

“It is the submission of Ms. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is belonging to the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), which is registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as a political party. The Petitioner is the Secretary of the SDPI. She submits that all FIR which have been mentioned in the impugned Orders are mainly under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). She submits that certain decisions of the Government of India were opposed by the Petitioner and his political party being Social Democratic Party of India and, therefore, agitations/morchas/dharnas were arranged. She submits that therefore the impugned Orders of Externment passed under Sub-Section 1(a) and 1(b) of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act have been passed without any subjective satisfaction and without any basis for the same. It is further submitted that the action taken is mala fide action. She also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat (R/Special Criminal Application No.8894 of 2020, decided on 26th August 2021).”

Key Petitioner Submissions

• Petitioner belongs to the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).
• SDPI is registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The petitioner serves as the secretary of the SDPI.
• Most FIRs referred to in the impugned orders are under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The protests, morchas, and dharnas were organized against decisions of the Government of India.
• The internment orders allegedly lack subjective satisfaction and legal basis.
• The petitioner alleges that the action is mala fide.
• Reliance was placed on:
  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
  • Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat (R/Special Criminal Application No. 8894 of 2020, decided on 26th August 2021)

State Response Before the High Court

As it turned out, the bench enunciates, on the other hand, in para. 4, disclosing that:

“On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, points out the detailed contentions raised in the Affidavit dated 30th June 2026 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police as also reasons given in the impugned Orders. She points out certain slogans given by the Petitioner and other Protesters. She submits that the morchas/dharnas/agitations were held although permission was refused by the Police Authorities. She submits that therefore action taken is in accordance with law.”

State Key Contentions

• Relied upon the affidavit dated 30th June 2026 filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
• Defended the reasons recorded in the impugned externment orders.
• Pointed to slogans allegedly raised by the petitioner and other protesters.
• Contended that protests were held despite refusal of police permission.
• Submitted that the action taken was in accordance with law.

Court Notes on Admitted Facts

Be it noted, the bench notes in para. 5 that:

“It is an admitted position that, the Petitioner in his capacity as the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India, has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas with respect to the certain decisions taken by the Government of India. The action is taken under Section 56 1(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Relevant portion of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act reads as under:”

Quick Reference of the Case

Section 56: Removal of Persons About to Commit Offence

56. Removal of persons about to commit an offense. —

[(1)] Whenever it shall appear in [Brihan Mumbai] and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or

(b) 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 Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or in the abatement 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, …”

Court Analysis of Section 56

Plainly speaking, the bench, after having a cursory bare perusal of Section 56 as stated hereinabove, observes in para. 6 that, “Thus, what is contemplated by Section 56 1(a) is that if the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to a person or property, then action of externment can be taken. Sub-Section 1(b) of Section 56 provides that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offense involving force or violence or an offense punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, or XVII of IPC. All these offenses are against the human body.”

Absence of Material Evidence Against the Petitioner

Do note, the bench notes in para. 7 that, “There is no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property. In all these FIRs, the allegation is that the Petitioner, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India, has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas, opposing certain decisions taken by the Government of India. The other allegation is that such agitations/morchas/dharnas have been arranged without permission of the police. The same is an offense under Section 188 of the IPC, and the maximum punishment is simple imprisonment of one month. However, that cannot be a ground for passing the externment order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act.”

Key Observations from Para 7

• No material showed that the Petitioner's movements caused alarm, danger, or harm.
• The FIRs related to organizing agitations, morchas, and dharnas.
• The alleged offense was under Section 188 IPC.
• Such allegations alone could not justify an extermination order under the Maharashtra Police Act.

Finding of Mala Fide Action

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para. 8 that "There is substance in the contention raised by Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the action taken is a mala fide action.”

Subjective Satisfaction Held Vitiated

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment, postulating precisely that, “Although the Externment Proposal, the details of which are set out in the Affidavit-in-Reply, records that the movements and acts of the Petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger, and harm to the public and property, perusal of the FIRs on the basis of which action is taken and the gist of which is set out in the Affidavit-in-Reply shows that the only allegation is that the Petitioner has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas against certain decisions of the Union of India and given slogans. Thus, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities that movements and acts of the petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger, and harm to the public and property is without any material to support the same. Thus, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated.”

Why the Court Rejected the Externment Order

Exile Is an Extraordinary Measure

Needless to say, the bench underscores and states in para. 10 that "it is a settled legal position that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure, and the effect of such an order is depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India" (Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99).

Constitutional Protection Under Articles 19 and 21

It merits noting that the bench notes in para. 11 that "Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India inter alia contemplate that not only do the citizens have the freedom of speech and expression, but they also have the right to live with dignity.”

Most commendably, the Bench explicitly holds in para. 12 that "The action taken by the Respondent–State of Maharashtra of externing the Petitioner, merely for opposing certain decisions of the Government of India, affects the Petitioner’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and also right to live with dignity.”

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

While citing relevant case law, the Bench propounds in para. 14 holding that "The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin (supra), in the context of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has held that the power under said Section cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights.”

Reliance on Gujarat High Court Precedent

While citing yet another relevant case law, it is worth noting that the Bench points out in para. 15 that "The Gujarat High Court in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui (supra) in a similar case, wherein an order of externment had been passed against the Petitioner in that case for protesting a decision of the Union of India, observed that a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for raising grievances against the Government and, therefore, the order of externment was liable to be set aside.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para. 16 noting that "the said observations of the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court are squarely applicable to the present case.”

Final Order of the Court

Finally, the bench then concludes by directing and holding in para. 17 that, “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by passing the following order:

Order

Order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai in Externment Order No. 472/C/43 as also the Order dated 27th March 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025 are quashed and set aside.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Expulsion cannot be ordered merely because a citizen protests against government decisions.
• There must be material evidence showing alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property.
• Subjective satisfaction of the authorities must be supported by evidence.
• Freedom of speech, peaceful protest, and the right to live with dignity remain protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• Expulsion is an extraordinary measure and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law.

Conclusion

In essence, this most pragmatic judgment has thus made it absolutely clear that citizens are not slaves of the government. It has also made it crystal clear that the people cannot be externed for protesting against the central government’s policies. So it was quite ostensible that the externment order that was passed against the SDPI leader was quashed and set aside. Very rightly so!