Recently, in a detailed pronouncement examining the limits of executive discretion in matters of public order, the Delhi High Court has held that externment orders, which restrict an individual’s movement and residence, cannot be invoked to curtail personal liberty or livelihood without cogent material on record.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while quashing an externment order passed against a Delhi resident and upheld by the Lieutenant Governor, observed that such action is an extraordinary measure and “must not be made in a mechanical manner.” The Court stressed that “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 case arose from a plea filed by a man challenging an externment order passed by the Delhi Police and later confirmed by the Lieutenant Governor. The petitioner asserted that although he had faced eight criminal trials until 2021, he had been acquitted in all except one, in which he had pleaded guilty and paid a nominal fine of Rs. 500. Alleging procedural irregularities and a violation of natural justice, he argued that the externment order lacked evidentiary backing.
The petitioner, who had been working as an event supervisor since 2018, also claimed that his difficulties stemmed from hostility by local criminals and certain police officials due to his past role as a police informer. The Delhi Police, however, opposed the plea, branding him a dangerous offender with a history of criminal activity spanning 18 years and asserting that his presence endangered public peace.
Rejecting the State’s contention, the Court noted that every criminal case against the petitioner had culminated in acquittal and that “there was nothing on record to show that the acquittals were on account of any threat to the witness or for any act attributable to him.” It further held that “no evidence has been produced to show that he is a person so desperate or dangerous that he is hazardous to the community if allowed to be at large.”
The Court also reflected on the civil consequences of such orders, observing that externment not only displaces an individual from his residence but also impairs his means of livelihood and social existence. “An externment order is not a judicial adjudication of an offence committed by an individual, but it lies in the realm of law and order in the context of escalation of crime, wherein restrictions are clamped on an individual, which in normal times may appear unreasonable,” the Court remarked.
By setting aside the impugned order, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle that preventive measures under externment laws cannot operate as punitive instruments in the absence of substantiated evidence, and must always be tempered by constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and due process.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :