The Bombay High Court has quashed externment orders issued by the Mumbai Police against two office-bearers of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that the action failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under the Maharashtra Police Act and amounted to an unjustified restriction on the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar set aside the externment orders dated December 3, 2025, passed against Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, who had been directed to remain outside Mumbai for one year. The Court held that the orders were legally unsustainable as they were primarily based on criminal cases arising out of public protests and lacked material demonstrating that the petitioners posed a real threat to public order, public safety or property.
The petitioners had challenged the externment orders in proceedings arising from three First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in 2024 and 2025 in connection with demonstrations relating to the Waqf Bill, alleged air pollution caused by cement godowns in the Chembur-Govandi area, and protests concerning the Babri Masjid issue.
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel argued that none of the allegations attracted Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers authorities to extern a person only when there is credible material indicating a likelihood of involvement in offences that endanger public peace, public safety, persons or property. It was submitted that the statutory threshold for invoking such preventive powers had not been met.
During the hearing, the High Court examined the contents of the FIRs and observed that they merely referred to sloganeering during protests. The records did not disclose any allegations of violence, damage to public property, injury to individuals or any overt act capable of disturbing public order. In the absence of such material, the Court found no legal justification for invoking the extraordinary power of externment.
The Court also expressed concern that although the FIRs named members of several political organisations who had participated in the same protests, externment proceedings had been initiated only against the two SDPI functionaries. It orally observed that the selective action appeared arbitrary and raised concerns that the petitioners had been singled out because they belonged to the Muslim community.
Justice Jamdar further held that expressing the opinion that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished could not, by itself, be treated as an anti-national act. The Court observed that holding or expressing such a view falls within the constitutional protection available to citizens and cannot constitute a valid ground for preventive action by the State.
The State, represented by Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray, referred to alleged links between the petitioners and the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), an allegation disputed by the petitioners. However, the Court noted that these allegations were absent from the show-cause notice initiating the externment proceedings. It held that authorities could not rely on grounds that were never disclosed to the affected persons, as doing so would violate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
The prosecution also argued that the petitioners’ conduct during the protests had the potential to create communal disharmony and disturb public peace. The High Court, however, held that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of speculative apprehensions or unsubstantiated assumptions. It emphasised that preventive measures restricting personal liberty and the right to move freely must be supported by concrete material and must strictly conform to the statutory framework.
Reiterating the settled legal position governing externment proceedings, the Court observed that an externment order is an extraordinary preventive measure that directly impacts the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19 of the Constitution. Such powers, it held, must be exercised sparingly and only in strict compliance with the conditions prescribed under the Maharashtra Police Act. The Court also noted that criminal cases still under investigation cannot, by themselves, furnish the basis for passing an externment order.
The Bench referred to its earlier decision granting similar relief to another SDPI office-bearer, in which it had held that slogans critical of the government, including political slogans, could not by themselves justify externment or constitute sufficient grounds to curtail constitutional freedoms.
Finding that the impugned orders suffered from legal infirmities, lacked statutory foundation and disproportionately interfered with the petitioners’ constitutional rights, the Bombay High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the externment
The post Babri Masjid demolition remarks: Bombay High Court quashes externment orders against SDPI leaders appeared first on India Legal.