Externment Orders Can’t Be Used To Deprive Persons Of Their Liberty & Right To Livelihood On Unsubstantiated Grounds: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court remarked that the Externment Orders cannot be used to deprive persons of their liberty and right to livelihood, on the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated.

The Court remarked thus in a Writ Petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an Order passed by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, upholding the Externment Order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC).

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “It has been rightly stated by the Petitioner that such Order of Externment which has no basis, only leads to deprivation of his right to livelihood and prevents him from taking care of his wife and children for whom, he is the sole source of income. The Orders of Externment needs to be made with some responsibility, to address the objective with which Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, has been inserted. While it cannot be overlooked that an onerous task of maintaining law and order and peace in Society, rests on the Police, but at the same time, it cannot be used to deprive persons of their liberty and right to livelihood, on the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated.”

The Bench enunciated that there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against, is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality would be hazardous to the society and its safety.

Advocate Ashish Upadhyay represented the Petitioner, while ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari represented the Respondent.

Case Background

The Petitioner was born in 1982 and since 1988, was residing in a colony at Delhi. He got married in 2005 and was blessed with two children. The Petitioner submitted that he faced trial in 8 criminal cases till 2021 and was acquitted in all the cases, except one in which he pleaded guilty and deposited fine of Rs. 500/-. Allegedly, the police officials without any cause registered Kalandra under Sections 107 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), but those proceedings were also closed. He joined the main stream of the society with the passage of time and was in regular employment. From 2018 till March, 2020, he was employed in a shop. Post lockdown due to Covid, there was no business. Thereafter, he was employed with another organization as Event Supervisor and continued his employment with no involvement in any criminal activities. According to the Petitioner, he rendered valuable assistance to the police as the informer and helped them in solving various cases, which eventually led to the enmity with other criminals who developed hatred against him.

He further alleged that all this led to issues with some Police Officials and he had always found himself to be in a tough spot with threats extended to involve him in false criminal cases. He was alleged to have falsely implicated in FIRs in 2023 and 2024. He and his family allegedly faced threats and police misconduct, including an incident involving his minor son. Hence, he lodged a complaint but no action was taken. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition and the Commissioner of Police was directed to treat his Petition as a Representation and to decide the matter expeditiously. Pursuantly, externment proceedings were initiated in 2024 as per the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the ADC directed the Petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year. This order was challenged before the Lieutenant Governor but the same was upheld. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Pertinently, all the Cases have ended in acquittal and there is nothing on record to show that the acquittal were on account of any threat to the witness or for any act attributable to the Petitioner. There has to be proper evidentiary material from where a satisfaction could be drawn that any of Clauses as mentioned in Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, are established leading to an inference of apprehension regarding the safety and property of the persons living therein the area.”

The Court reiterated that mere apprehension of the person is not sufficient and there must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material, which shows that the movements and the acts of the Petitioner, are alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.

“Much has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that there are two Statements recorded of the persons, which have been put in the sealed cover, to show the kind of threats that are being extended by the Petitioner. Significantly, in the Order Sheet, there is no mention whatsoever of the Statements of the witnesses having been recorded and kept in a sealed cover. It finds mention only in the Impugned Order, which creates a doubt about their genuineness and they being procured by the Respondents only to justify their acts”, it noted.

Moreover, the Court emphasised that merely making bald assertions not supported by any specific, cannot be considered as any kind of cogent evidence.

“While concluding, it may be noted that the Impugned Order of the Externment is a mechanical Order, which merely reproduces the language of the Section and is not supported by evidence of any kind. It is clearly an Order, which does not establish the circumstances as detailed in Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, which would merit the Externment of the Petitioner”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the externment order.

Cause Title- Mahesh Shrivastava @ Jeeva v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9184)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ashish Upadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Mishra.

Respondent: ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari and Advocate Alok Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment