Bombay High Court has quashed a one-year externment order against a Mumbai-based political functionary, holding that participation in protests against government decisions cannot be used to drive a citizen out of his locality.
Justice Madhav Jamdar passed the order on Thursday while hearing a petition filed by Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, 49, general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India, who challenged action initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 6. The externment order had been issued on December 3, 2025, and later confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on March 27, 2026.
The court found that the police action was based largely on five FIRs connected to morchas and dharnas organised by Chaudhary against decisions of the Government of India, including the Citizenship Amendment Act and the Gyanvapi Masjid issue. Justice Jamdar said arranging such protests could not be treated as a valid ground for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.
The order is significant because externment is among the stronger preventive tools available to police authorities. It permits the removal of a person from a specified area for a defined period on the ground that their presence may cause danger, alarm or public disorder. Courts have repeatedly held that such powers must be used with restraint because they affect movement, livelihood, family life and reputation.
Justice Jamdar observed that citizens have a right to protest and to raise slogans against government decisions. During the hearing, he questioned why slogans such as “BJP government murdabad” or “Amit Shah murdabad” should invite an externment order. He also said police are public servants and not servants of the chief minister or the prime minister.
The bench held that the action affected rights protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 19 covers freedom of speech, expression and peaceful assembly, while Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity. The court said merely opposing decisions of the Government of India could not justify removing a person from his surroundings.
The judgment described the action as mala fide and set aside both the original externment order and the appellate order that upheld it. The writ petition was disposed of after the court dictated its order.
The case adds to a wider judicial debate over the use of preventive powers against political workers, campaigners and local activists. Externment proceedings are meant to prevent future harm, but their use against protest activity has drawn scrutiny because such orders can become punitive in effect even before a criminal case reaches trial.
Chaudhary’s plea challenged the legality of the police action, arguing that the FIRs relied upon by the authorities did not show any continuing threat that required his removal from the area. The order passed against him had barred him for one year, a restriction that could have affected his political work, family connections and ordinary movement.
The court’s reasoning places emphasis on the difference between public disorder and dissent. Political protest may involve criticism, slogans and mobilisation, but the state must show a clear legal basis before invoking coercive preventive measures. A citizen’s opposition to a policy, minister or ruling party does not by itself establish danger to public order.
The ruling also comes at a time when courts are being asked to examine police action arising from demonstrations, public meetings and online or offline criticism of those in power. The line between security concerns and constitutional freedoms has become sharper as authorities use preventive laws, prohibitory orders and criminal complaints in politically sensitive matters.
Legal experts have long argued that externment orders require a live link between alleged conduct and the need for preventive action. The authority passing such an order must demonstrate objective material, not merely cite pending cases or protest-related complaints. A mechanical reliance on FIRs can weaken the legality of the measure.
The Bombay High Court’s order reinforces that police discretion is not unlimited. Preventive powers must be grounded in law, proportionate to the threat and consistent with constitutional protections. Where the material only shows participation in political demonstrations, the state cannot treat protest as misconduct requiring banishment.
