Section 56 Karnataka Police Act | Externment Order Without Jurisdictional Basis Violates Article 21: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, holding that the order was without jurisdiction as the offences relied upon did not fall within the categories specified under Section 56(a-h). The judgment reaffirms that externment orders, which curtail fundamental rights including Article 21 of the Constitution, must strictly comply with statutory provisions and cannot be passed de hors the law.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Muzammil s/o Mohammedsharif Attar, a resident of Belagavi, was externed from Belagavi District for six months (04.06.2026 to 03.12.2026) by an order dated 04.06.2026 passed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The order restricted his entry into Belagavi District, except for court proceedings, and externed him to Bagalkot District. The appellant challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that it was passed without jurisdiction and violated his fundamental rights.

Key Facts

• The externment order was based on six cases pending against the appellant, none of which fell under the offences specified in Section 56(a-h) of the K.P. Act.
• The cases relied upon included offences under:
  • Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act (Cases 1 and 2)
  • Section 160 of the IPC (Case 3)
  • Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Case 4, corresponding to Section 153 of the IPC)
  • Section 107 of the CrPC (Case 5)
  • Section 126 of the BNSS (Case 6, corresponding to Section 107 of the CrPC)
• The appellant was permitted to enter court premises for pending proceedings.
• The appellant was also listed in the Rowdy Sheeter Register, though this challenge was not pressed in the appeal.

Procedural History

• 04.06.2026: Externment order passed under Section 56 of the K.P. Act.
• 11.06.2026: Writ Petition (WP No. 104739/2026) filed before the Single Judge challenging the externment order.
• 11.06.2026: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that an efficacious remedy was available under Section 59 of the K.P. Act and relegating the appellant to avail the statutory remedy.
• 17.06.2026: Writ Appeal (WA No. 100386/2026) filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

1. Quashing of the externment order dated 04.06.2026.
2. A declaration that the order was passed without jurisdiction.
3. Immediate release from the externment restrictions.

The Legal Issue

The Division Bench framed the following questions for consideration:

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 59 of the K.P. Act?
2. Whether the externment order was without jurisdiction, justifying the waiver of the statutory remedy and the entertaining of a writ petition?
3. Whether the offences relied upon for the externment order fell within the categories specified under Section 56(a-h) of the K.P. Act?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

1. The externment order violated the appellant’s fundamental rights, including Article 21 of the Constitution, and the Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition.
2. The order was passed without jurisdiction, as the offences relied upon did not fall under Section 56(a-h) of the K.P. Act. The appellant contended that the power under Article 226 could be exercised even when an order is without jurisdiction, citing exceptions to the rule of alternative remedies.
3. The appellant relied on precedents such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal to argue that judicial review under Article 226 remains intact even when a statute declares an order final.

For the Respondent

1. The Single Judge correctly relegated the appellant to avail the remedy under Section 59 of the K.P. Act, as it was an efficacious alternative.
2. The appellant was a rowdy sheeter, and the court ought not to exercise discretion in entertaining the writ appeal.
3. The externment order was passed after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing, and the appellant’s contention that the order was palpably erroneous did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy.

The Court's Analysis

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of the legal principles governing the entertainability of writ petitions in the presence of alternative remedies. Key observations included:

1. Externment Orders and Fundamental Rights: The Court noted that externment orders impinge upon the liberty of an individual and may violate Article 21 of the Constitution if passed without adherence to law. In such cases, the remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable, even if an alternative remedy exists.

   "As the order of externment may impinge upon liberty of an individual, it is always open to challenge the validity of such order by contending violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by taking recourse to an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."

2. Exceptions to Alternative Remedy: The Court relied on the precedent in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, which carves out exceptions for entertaining writ petitions, including:

   • Enforcement of fundamental rights.
   • Proceedings wholly without jurisdiction.
   • Violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held that these exceptions apply even when a statute provides for a finality clause, as judicial review under Article 226 is part of the rule of law and cannot be barred by legislation.

3. Jurisdictional Defect in the Externment Order: The Court scrutinized the cases relied upon for the externment order and found that none of the offences fell within the categories specified under Section 56(a-h) of the K.P. Act. The offences included:

   • Section 87 of the K.P. Act (Cases 1 and 2): Not covered under Section 56.
   • Section 160 of the IPC (Case 3): Not covered under Section 56(a).
   • Section 192 of the BNS (Case 4, corresponding to Section 153 of the IPC): Falls under Chapter XVIII of the IPC, not covered under Section 56(a).
   • Section 107 of the CrPC (Case 5): Not enumerated under Section 56(a-h).
   • Section 126 of the BNSS (Case 6, corresponding to Section 107 of the CrPC): Not covered under Section 56(a-h).

   The Court held that the externment order was passed de hors the statutory provisions, rendering it without jurisdiction. The Government Advocate could not controvert this contention.

4. Judicial Discretion and Remedies: The Court observed that while the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 59 of the K.P. Act does not bar the entertainability of a writ petition, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is a matter of judicial discretion. However, where an order is without jurisdiction, the Court may entertain the writ petition to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The Verdict

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, setting aside:

1. The impugned externment order dated 04.06.2026.
2. The order of the Single Judge dated 11.06.2026 dismissing the writ petition.

The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant from the externment restrictions. The authority was, however, reserved the power to take fresh action as per law.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Externment Orders Must Strictly Comply With Statutory Provisions

• Externment orders under Section 56 of the K.P. Act must be based on offences falling within the categories specified under Section 56(a-h). Orders passed without reference to these categories are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
• Practitioners must scrutinize the offences relied upon in externment orders to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. Non-compliance renders the order vulnerable to challenge under Article 226.

Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked For Orders Without Jurisdiction

• The judgment reaffirms that judicial review under Article 226 remains available even when a statute provides for an alternative remedy, particularly when:
  • The order impinges upon fundamental rights (e.g., Article 21).
  • The order is passed without jurisdiction.
  • There is a violation of principles of natural justice.
• Courts may entertain writ petitions in such cases, notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedies like Section 59 of the K.P. Act.

Liberty Concerns Override Procedural Technicalities

• Externment orders, being drastic measures that curtail personal liberty, must be passed in strict adherence to law. Courts are likely to intervene where such orders are passed without jurisdiction or in violation of procedural safeguards.
• The judgment underscores the importance of Article 21 in externment proceedings and signals that courts will not hesitate to set aside orders that violate constitutional guarantees.