The Bombay High Court has quashed the externment orders passed against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that merely organising protests, dharnas and morchas against decisions of the Union Government cannot justify externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar allowed the writ petition challenging the externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chembur, and the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.
The case arose from an externment order passed against Chaudhary under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. The petitioner contended that, as Secretary of the SDPI, he had organised protests, morchas and dharnas against certain decisions of the Union Government and that the FIRs relied upon by the authorities were primarily for offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging violation of prohibitory orders. He argued that the externment proceedings were mala fide, unsupported by material and intended to suppress political dissent. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the protests were held despite refusal of police permission and justified the externment action.
Examining the record, the Court found that the FIRs merely alleged that the petitioner had organised protests and raised slogans opposing Government decisions without obtaining prior permission. It held that such allegations, even if they constituted offences under Section 188 IPC, could not satisfy the statutory requirements for externment, particularly in the absence of any material showing that his acts caused or were likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property. The Court observed:
“
“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 person or property… The same is an offence under Section 188 of the IPC… However, that cannot be a ground for passing the externment order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act.”
The High Court further held that the authorities’ subjective satisfaction was unsupported by the material placed on record and was therefore vitiated. Noting that an externment order seriously impinges upon fundamental rights, the Court reiterated that it is an extraordinary measure affecting a citizen’s freedom of movement. Referring to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308 and the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui v. State of Gujarat, R/SCR.A/8894/2020, the Court held that democratic protest cannot be suppressed through coercive executive action. Making a significant observation on the impact of the impugned action, the Court held:
“
“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.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the externment order dated December 3, 2025 and the appellate order dated March 27, 2026, allowing the writ petition.
