Karnataka High Court
Sri Abdul Kalam @ Abdul vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
WP No. 9575 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 9575 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ABDUL KALAM @ ABDUL,
S/O NAZIR AHAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT LOHITH NAGAR,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 132.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHRIDEVI BHOSALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
NAGAVENI
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 103.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NELMANGALA SUB DIVISION,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
WP No. 9575 of 2024
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
NELMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED. 19.03.2024 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
M.A.G.S.RNO.50-46/2023, ISSUED BY THE R-2, THEREBY
CALLING UPON HIM TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AN ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 55 OF KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, FOR EXTERNMENT OF THIS PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a
show cause notice dated 19.03.2024, issued by respondent
No.2, seeking the petitioner as to why he should not be
externed.
2. Heard Smt. Shridevi Bhosale, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned AGA
appearing for the respondents and have perused the material
on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
3. Though what is called in question is a show cause
notice, the report that is required to be appended to the show
cause notice is not appended is an admitted fact. This Court in
W.P.No.9727/2024 had passed a detailed order on 05.04.2024,
directing the State to issue a Circular in the form of guidelines
as to what the Competent Authority should consider and look
into before / while passing an order of externment. In terms of
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9727/2024, the State
Government has issued a circular on 18.04.2024. The Circular
reads as follows:
""ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
¸ÀASÉå: ºÉZï r 161 J¸ïJ¸ï n 2024 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಸ ಾಲಯ
ಾನ ೌಧ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಾಂಕ: 18.04.2024
ಸು ೋ!ೆ
ಷಯ:-#ಾನ$ ಉಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯದ)* +ಾಖ!ಾ-ರುವ /0 ಅ2
ಸಂ3ೆ$:9727/2024ರ ಪ5ಕರಣದ ಆ+ೇಶದನ9ಯ ಗ:;ಾರು
ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳನು< =ವ >ಸುವ)* ;ಾ)ಸ ೇ ಾದ
=ಯಮ/ಕ5ಮಗಳ ಕು/ತು.
------
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ A)ೕB ಾC+ೆ 1963ರ ಕಲಂ 55 /ಂದ 60ರವDೆ-ನ
ಕಲಂಗಳ)* ಸEಮ ;ಾ5F ಾರಗಳG ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳನು< =ವ >ಸುವ ಬIೆJ
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
ವ/ಸ!ಾ-+ೆ. ಕಲಂ 55ರ ಅ:ಯ)* 2!ಾ*F ಾ/ Kಾಗೂ 2!ಾ*
ದಂLಾF ಾ/ಗಳG /ಉಪ A)ೕB ಆಯುಕರು ( ಾನೂನು & ಸುವ$ವ ೆM)
Kಾಗೂ Nೇಷ ಾಯ = ಾ ಹಕ ದಂLಾF ಾ// ಉಪ PಾIಾF ಾ/ಗಳG
Kಾಗೂ ಉಪ Pಾ-ೕಯ ದಂLಾF ಾ/ಗQIೆ ಗ:;ಾರು ಆ+ೇಶ Kೊರ:ಸಲು
ಅವ ಾಶ ರುತ+ೆ. ಅದರನ9ಯ, ಕಲಂ 54, 55 ಅಥ ಾ 56ರ ಪ5ಕರಣದ
SೕDೆIೆ (ಾವT+ೇ ವ$Uಯ ರುದV ಆ+ೇಶವನು< #ಾಡುವTದ ೆX ಮುಂYೆ,
ಸEಮ ;ಾ5F ಾರವT ಇ[\;ೆಕ]^ ದ_ೆ Iೆ Sೕಲ`ಟ] (ಾವT+ೇ ಅF ಾ/ಯು,
ಆ ವ$UIೆ ಅವನ ರುದV #ಾಡ!ಾದ ಮುಖ$ ಆDೋಪಗಳ ಾ#ಾನ$
ಸ9ರೂಪವನು< )aತರೂಪ ಾ- bQಸತಕXದುc ಮತು ಅವTಗಳ ಬIೆJ ಅವನು
ತನ< ವರdೆಯನು< =ೕಡಲು ಮುಕ ಅವ ಾಶ =ೕಡತಕXದುc. ಅಂತಹ ವ$Uಯು
ತ=<ಂದ Kಾಜರುಪ:ಸ!ಾದ ಾfಯನು< ಪ/ೕfಸ ೇ ೆಂದು ಮನ
ಸ)*gದc),* ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ] ;ಾ5F ಾರವT ಆ ಮನ ಯು ಗ:;ಾರು ಆ+ೇಶದ
ರುದV ಅತೃi ಅಥ ಾ ಳಂಬ #ಾಡುವ ಉ+ೆcೕಶ ಂದ ಸ)*ಸ!ಾ-+ೆjಂದು
ಬರಹದ ರೂಪದ)* ಅk;ಾ5Cಸದ Kೊರತು, ಅಂತಹ ಮನ ಯನು<
ಪ/ಗlಸತಕXದುc ಮತು ಆತನು =ೕಡುವ ಾfಗಳನು< ಪ/ೕfಸುವ
ಉ+ೆcೕಶಗQIಾ- ಾನೂನು ವೃbಪರರ ಮೂಲಕ KಾಜDಾಗಲು
ಅಹ Dಾ-ರು ಾDೆ.
ಇಂತಹ ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ ಗಂkೕರ ೆಯನು< #ಾನ$ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಉಚ'
ಾ$(ಾಲಯವT m5ೕ ಸ [ ಎಂ.ಆ^. ತಂ+ೆ Dಾಮಚಂದ5 ಮಲ*ಹQo, Iಾ5ಮ,
Sೖಸೂರು 2!ೆ* ರುದV ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Dಾಜ$ ಮbತರರು ಪ5ಕರಣದ /0 ಅ2
ಸಂ3ೆ$:9727/2024 (2ಎಂ-A)ೕB)ರ ಪ5ಕರಣದ)* bೕi ನ)* ಎb
>: +ೆ. ಈ bೕi ನ)* #ಾನ$ ಾ$(ಾಲಯ =ೕ:ರುವ =+ೇ ಶನದಂ ೆ
ಗ:;ಾರು ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ ಆ+ೇಶದ)*ನ ನೂ$ನ ೆಗಳG, ಾಂb5ಕ
!ೋಪ+ೋಷಗಳ ಕು/ತಂ ೆ ಗ:;ಾರು ಪ5 ಾವ ೆಗಳನು</Sೕಲrನ ಗಳನು<
ಪ/ಗlಸು ಾಗ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳನು< ಗಮನದ)*/g ೊಂಡು ಗ:;ಾರು
ಆ+ೇಶವನು< Kೊರ:ಸುವಂ ೆ ಎ!ಾ* ;ಾ5F ಾ/ಗQIೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
ಸೂ ಸ!ಾ-+ೆ.
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
ಗ:;ಾರು ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳನು< ಪ/ಗlಸು ಾಗ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ A)ೕB
ಾjc 1963ರ ಕಲಂ 55 /ಂದ 60ರ)*ರುವ ಎ!ಾ* ಅಂಶಗಳನು< ತಪ`+ೇ
ಪ/ಗlಸತಕXದುc, ಅದರ)*ರುವ ಎ!ಾ* ಅಂಶಗಳನು< ಪ/ಗlg ;ಾ5F ಾರ ೆX,
ಗ:;ಾರು #ಾಡುವTದು ಅವಶ$ಕ ಎಂದು ಮನ ೆ ಆದ ನಂತರವsೆ]ೕ ಅಂತಹ
ಆ+ೇಶವನು< #ಾಡತಕXದುc. Nೇಷ ಾ- ಆ ವ$UIೆ ಸಮಪ ಕ ಾದ
ಅವ ಾವನು< =ೕ:ದ ನಂತರವsೆ]ೕ ಸೂಕ ಆ+ೇಶ #ಾಡತಕXದುc
ಗ:;ಾರು ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ ಗಂkೕರ ೆಯನು< #ಾನ$ ಸtೕ ಚ'
ಾ$(ಾಲಯ Kಾಗೂ #ಾನ ಉಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯಗಳG ಅ ೇಕ ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ)*
ಎb >: ೆ.
" ೕಪu V/S ಮKಾDಾಷv, Dಾdå ಪ5ಕರಣದ)* #ಾನ$ ಸtೕ ಚ'
ಾ$(ಾಲಯದ ಪ5ಮುಖ ಅk;ಾ5ಯಗಳG ೆಳ-ನಂb ೆ.
"6. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India, there is a fundamental right conferred
on the citizens to move freely throughout the territory of
India. In view of clause (5) of Article 19, State is
empowered to make a law enabling the imposition of
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by clause (d). An order of externment passed
under provisions of Section 56 of the 1951 Act imposes a
restraint on the person against whom the order is made
from entering a particular area. Thus, such orders infringe
the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).
Hence, the restriction imposed by passing an order of
externment must stand the test of reasonableness.
.... .... ....
9. As observed earlier, Section 56 makes serious
inroads on the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. In the
case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of
Police, State of Maharashtra1 in paragraph 9, this Court has
held that the reasons which necessitate or justify the
passing of an extraordinary order of externment arise out
of extraordinary circumstances. In the same decision, this
Court held that care must be taken to ensure that the
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
requirement of giving a hearing under Section 59 of the
1951 Act is strictly complied with. This Court also held that
the requirements of Section 56 must be strictly complied
with.
10. ....It thus follows that recourse should be taken
to Section 56 very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an
extraordinary measure. For invoking clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 56, there must be objective
material on record on the basis of which the competent
authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the
movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or
property. For passing an order under clause (b), there
must be objective material on the basis of which the
competent authority must record subjective satisfaction
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such
person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving force or violence or
offences punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the
IPC..
.... .... ....
13. Considering the nature of the power under
Section 56, the competent authority is not expected to
write a judgment containing elaborate reasons. However,
the competent authority must record its subjective
satisfaction of the existence of one of the grounds in sub-
section (1) of Section 56 on the basis of objective material
placed before it. Though the competent authority is not
required to record reasons on par with a judicial order,
when challenged, the competent authority must be in a
position to show the application of mind. The Court while
testing the order of externment cannot go into the question
of sufficiency of material based on which the subjective
satisfaction has been recorded. However, the Court can
always consider whether there existed any material on the
basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been
recorded. The Court can interfere when either there is no
material or the relevant material has not been considered.
The Court cannot interfere because there is a possibility of
another view being taken. As in the case of any other
administrative order, the judicial review is permissible on
the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness or
arbitrariness.
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
ಉ!ೆ*ೕಖದ)*ರುವ /0 ಅ2 ಸಂ3ೆ$ 9727/2024ರ)* #ಾನ$
ಉಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯವT Sೕ)ನಂ ೆ #ಾನ$ ಸtೕ ಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯದ ಧ
ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ)* =ೕ:ರುವ ಗುರುತರ ಅk;ಾ5ಯಗಳನು< ಪTನರುಚw/ಸು ಾ
ೆಳ-ನಂ ೆ =+ೇ ಶನ =ೕ:ರುತ+ೆ.
14. There are several safeguards for passage of an
order of externment upon the person against whom it is
sought to be passed. These are procedural safeguards.
It is trite that procedural safeguards are the life
blood of liberty, which cannot be treated or taken away
in the manner that it is done in the case at hand. It is
also to be noticed that the orders passed by this Court
and the Apex Court are deliberately or blissfully ignored
by the 2nd respondent, as there is not even a semblance
of compliance either of the statute or the orders passed
by this Court. Therefore, the State/the 2nd respondent is
hereby admonished that any repetition of the kind of the
orders that is passed in deliberate defiance to the orders
passed by the Apex Court or this Court would fringe on
the borders of contumacious contempt on the part of the
State. Therefore, such acts iterated through such orders
would be viewed seriously. It thus becomes necessary to
direct the Chief Secretary of the State, to take note of the
situation, and issue a circular for appropriate passage of
the orders of externment, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order. This would
prevent abuse of the office and mushrooming of cases
filed before this Court.
ಈ SೕಲXಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳನು< Kಾಗೂ #ಾನ$ ಉಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯವT
/0 ಅ2 ಸಂ3ೆ$:9727/2024ರ ಾಂಕ:05.04.2024ರ ಆ+ೇಶದ)*
ಗ: ಾರು ಪ5ಕರಣಗQIೆ ಸಂಬಂFgದಂ ೆ =ೕ:ರುವ =+ೇ ಶನಗಳನು<
ಕLಾxಯ ಾ- ;ಾ)ಸತಕXದುc. ಒಂದು ೇzೆ #ಾನ$ ಉಚ' ಾ$(ಾಲಯವT
=ೕ:ರುವ =+ೇ ಶನಗಳನು< ;ಾ)ಸಲು ಫಲ ಾದ)* ಸEಮ ;ಾ5F ಾ/ಗzೇ
ೇರ KೊdೆIಾರDಾ-ರು ಾDೆ.
¸À»/-
(Lಾ. ರಜ=ೕ| Iೋj}, Pಾಆ ೇ.)
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಮುಖ$ ಾಯ ದm
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ,
ಾನ ೌಧ."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
project several legal lacuna in the proceeding. The lacuna are
that the report against the petitioner who was sought to be
externed was not appended to the show cause notice. The
second lacuna is that there is no proximity of any kind being
conducted by the petitioner to the date of the order of
externment. The crime that is projected in the order is in
C.C.No.18/2024, which was in Crime No.244/2012 for offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B
read with Section 149 of the IPC, which is pending trial.
5. Therefore, reasons so projected on the face of it, is
contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
DEEPAK V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS1 and
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9727/2024,
disposed on 05.04.2024.
2022 SCC OnLine SC 99
NC: 2024:KHC:15432
6. In the light of the Circular so issued by the State,
I deem it appropriate to set aside the notice issued by
respondent No.2, with a direction to act strictly in consonance
with the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and of this
Court so also the Circular now issued by the State on
18.04.2024.
7. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
ii. The show cause notice dated 19.03.2024
issued by respondent No.2 and all further
proceedings taken thereto, stand quashed.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of
the Competent Authority and the Competent
Authority to whom the petitioner has
submitted the objections, shall consider
strictly in consonance with law, bearing in
mind the observations made in the course of
the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SJK
