Protesting Govt Decisions Isn’t A Crime: Bombay High Court Tears Into Police Over “Mala Fide” Externment Of SDPI Leader
Justice Madhav Jamdar rules police action was “mala fide” and without material basis, holds that externing a citizen merely for opposing government decisions strikes at his fundamental right to free speech and dignity
NewsArc Bureau
Mumbai, July 3
The Bombay High Court has quashed externment orders passed against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that the action taken against him was mala fide and violated his fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression and dignity.
A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, in a judgment dated July 2, allowed a writ petition filed by Chaudhary challenging the externment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, on December 3, 2025, and a subsequent order by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissing his appeal on March 27, 2026.
THE CASE
Chaudhary’s counsel, Advocate Payoshi Roy, argued that the FIRs cited in the externment orders were primarily registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code — relating to disobedience of orders promulgated by public servants — and stemmed from agitations, morchas and dharnas organised by the SDPI against certain decisions of the Union government. She contended the orders lacked any subjective satisfaction or legal basis and amounted to a mala fide exercise of power.
The State, represented by APP S.M. Yadav, defended the action, pointing to slogans raised during the protests and arguing that the agitations were held without police permission, justifying externment under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
COURT’S FINDINGS
Examining the record, Justice Jamdar found no material to establish that Chaudhary’s movements or acts were “causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property” — the statutory threshold under Section 56(1)(a). The court noted that the only real allegation against him was organising protests against Union government decisions without police permission, an offence under Section 188 IPC carrying a maximum sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment.
The judgment stated in unambiguous terms that this “cannot be a ground for passing the externment order,” and held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities was “without any material to support the same,” and was therefore “vitiated.”
Justice Jamdar further observed that externment is “an extraordinary measure” whose effect is to deprive a citizen of the fundamental right of free movement across India. The court held that externing the petitioner “merely for opposing certain decisions of the Government of India” struck at his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as his right to live with dignity.
RELIANCE ON PRECEDENT
The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which had held that restrictive state powers cannot be invoked to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, grievance, or the exercise of democratic rights. It also cited a Gujarat High Court ruling in a similar externment matter, which held that a citizen cannot be externed merely for raising grievances against the government.
Calling these precedents “squarely applicable” to Chaudhary’s case, the court set aside both impugned orders in their entirety.
THE ORDER
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Externment Order No. 472/C/43 dated December 3, 2025, along with the appellate order dated March 27, 2026, that had upheld it.
