The Karnataka High Court has underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in externment proceedings. In a recent order, the Court directed the authorities to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit objections before passing any order, reinforcing the procedural safeguards established by the Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gajanan S/o Arunkumar Deshpande, a 37-year-old real estate professional from Kalaburagi, challenged two externment notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Kalaburagi. The notices, dated 18.06.2026 and 26.06.2026, called upon the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 02.07.2026 in connection with externment proceedings under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The petitioner contended that the notices were arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was served with externment notices (Annexure-A dated 18.06.2026 and Annexure-A1 dated 26.06.2026) by Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Kalaburagi).
- The notices required the petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalaburagi) on 02.07.2026.
- The petitioner sought to quash the notices and, in the alternative, requested a direction to Respondent No. 4 to conduct the externment proceedings in compliance with legal principles.
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent Karnataka High Court judgments to argue that the notices failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Procedural History
- 18.06.2026: First externment notice (Annexure-A) issued by Respondent No. 3.
- 26.06.2026: Second externment notice (Annexure-A1) issued.
- 02.07.2026: Scheduled date for the petitioner’s appearance before Respondent No. 4.
- WP No. 202507 of 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 before the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, seeking quashing of the notices and compliance with natural justice principles.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- Quashing of the impugned notices dated 18.06.2026 and 26.06.2026 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
- A direction to Respondent No. 4 to conduct externment proceedings in accordance with law, including granting a reasonable opportunity to submit objections.
- Any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the externment notices issued by the police authorities complied with the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a reasonable opportunity to respond, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent judgments.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The impugned notices were arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and the right to life and personal liberty.
- The notices failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to submit objections, as required by the principles laid down in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra.
- Reliance was placed on Karnataka High Court judgments, including Giddappa v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 8182/2023), Shakeeb @ Mohammed Shakeebullah v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 14426/2023), and Sri. Wahid @ Chumati v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 202180/2026), which reiterated the need for procedural fairness in externment proceedings.
For the Respondents
The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondents submitted that:
- The petitioner would be granted a reasonable opportunity to file objections if he appeared before Respondent No. 4 on 02.07.2026.
- Respondent No. 4 would provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and pass orders in accordance with law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the externment notices, which required his appearance before Respondent No. 4 on 02.07.2026. The Court noted that the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a reasonable opportunity to respond, must be scrupulously followed in externment proceedings. The Court relied on the following key precedents:
"The Apex Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) held that externment proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice. The authorities are duty-bound to provide a reasonable opportunity to the affected person to submit objections before passing any order."
The Court further emphasized that the judgments cited by the petitioner, including Giddappa v. State of Karnataka and Shakeeb @ Mohammed Shakeebullah v. State of Karnataka, reinforced the need for procedural fairness. The Court held that the impugned notices, while not quashed, must be followed by a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present his case.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 4 on 02.07.2026.
- Respondent No. 4 was directed to grant the petitioner one week from 02.07.2026 to submit his objections to the externment notices.
- Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 was directed to provide a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and pass orders in accordance with law, following the principles laid down in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and other cited judgments.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable in Externment Proceedings
- Externment authorities must ensure compliance with natural justice principles, including the right to a reasonable opportunity to respond. Failure to do so may render the proceedings arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
- Judicial precedents are binding: Authorities must follow the procedural safeguards established by the Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent High Court judgments.
The Burden of Proof Lies on the Authorities
- Authorities must demonstrate that they have provided a fair hearing before passing any externment order. Mere issuance of a notice without affording an opportunity to respond is insufficient.
- Petitioners can challenge arbitrary notices: If externment notices are issued without compliance with procedural safeguards, affected individuals can approach the High Court under Article 226 for appropriate relief.
Timelines and Compliance Are Critical
- One-week window for objections: The Court’s direction to grant a one-week period for submitting objections sets a clear timeline for authorities to follow.
- Opportunity to be heard: Authorities must ensure that the affected person is heard before passing any order, failing which the proceedings may be vitiated.
Practitioners should note that externment proceedings, while falling within the purview of police powers, are subject to constitutional limitations. The Court’s emphasis on procedural fairness serves as a reminder that Articles 14 and 21 must be upheld even in administrative actions.
