Procedural Safeguards Are Life Blood Of Liberty; There Must Be Minimum Proximity For Passing Externment Order: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court said that there must be minimum proximity for passing an order of externment. It remarked that procedural safeguards are the life blood of liberty.
The Court was deciding a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Sub Divisional Magistrate invoking his power under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The Apex Court clearly holds that externment is not an ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly, only in extraordinary circumstances, as an order of externment takes away the fundamental right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Apex Court has clearly held that it must stand the test of reasonableness as contemplated in Clause (5) of Article 19 of Constitution of India. Since the interpretation of the Apex Court of the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act are in pari materia with the Act, it would become applicable to the case at hand. The crux of the provision is that there should be minimum proximity or necessity for passing an order of externment against any person, in the case at hand the petitioner. The act of the 2nd respondent is undoubtedly contrary to the statue and in blissful ignorance of the law.”
Advocate K.V. Sateesh Chandra represented the petitioner while Additional Government Advocate K.P. Yoganna represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The Assistant Commissioner/Sub Divisional Magistrate externed the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere. The petitioner claimed to be a permanent resident of a village in Mysore District and claimed to be doing business as his avocation and was residing with his family members. During his stay at Mysore, he got embroiled in several cases.
The cases were pending against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 143, 147, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The other crime was before the same police station for the same offences except in addition of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The third crime was for the offence punishable under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which was stayed by the Sessions Judge itself.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel said, “What is more shocking is after the passage of the order of externment against the petitioner, externing him from Davangere to Mysore, on 20.03.2024 a corrigendum is issued, modifying the externment from Davangere to Tumkur, on 28.03.2024, the petitioner is treated as a chattel in the hands of the 2nd respondent and his personal liberty is eroded in a cavalier manner. The 2nd respondent cannot treat his office as his personal fiefdom and misuse the power conferred upon him under the Act. He is bound by the rule of law.”
The Court noted that there are several safeguards for passage of an order of externment upon the person against whom it is sought to be passed and these are procedural safeguards.
“It is trite that procedural safeguards are the life blood of liberty, which cannot be treated or taken away in the manner that it is done in the case at hand. It is also to be noticed that the orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court are deliberately or blissfully ignored by the 2nd respondent, as there is not even a semblance of compliance either of the statute or the orders passed by this Court”, it added.
The Court said that the State is hereby admonished that any repetition of the kind of the orders that is passed in deliberate defiance to the orders passed by the Apex Court or the High Court would fringe on the borders of contumacious contempt on the part of the State and therefore, such acts iterated through such orders would be viewed seriously.
“It thus becomes necessary to direct the Chief Secretary of the State, to take note of the situation, and issue a circular for appropriate passage of the orders of externment, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. This would prevent abuse of the office and mushrooming of cases filed before this Court”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title- Sachin M.R. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:14192)
