The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, cannot impose a two-year restriction without explicit, reasoned subjective satisfaction grounded in objective material. The judgment invalidates an order that relied on stale criminal cases and vague confidential statements, emphasizing that fundamental rights to movement cannot be curtailed on speculative grounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Omkar Shriram Bhagat, a 27-year-old businessman residing in Dombivali (East), Thane, was subjected to an externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, restricting him from entering the districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, and Raigad for a period of two years. The order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan, on 19th November 2024, and upheld on appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 10th December 2025.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was named in three criminal cases:
- CR No. 138/2017 (Dombivali PS): Registered on 2017 under Sections 302, 342, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 IPC read with Sections 3, 25, 27, 30 of the Indian Arms Act. Status: Subjudice.
- CR No. 626/2021 (Manpada PS): Registered on 2021 under Sections 394, 392, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC. Status: Subjudice.
- CR No. 408/2023 (Dombivali PS): Registered on 2023 under Sections 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 37(1),(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Status: Subjudice.
- The show cause notice under Section 59 of the Act was issued on 16th November 2024, over seven years after CR No. 138/2017 and three years after CR No. 626/2021.
- The order relied on confidential witness statements alleging a "reign of terror" that deterred public testimony, without disclosing the content or identity of such statements.
- No specific incident or recent act of violence was cited to justify the externment.
Procedural History
- 19.11.2024: Order of externment passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan.
- 16.11.2024: Show cause notice issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
- 10.12.2025: Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal (Appeal No. 214/2024) under Section 60 of the Act, upholding the externment.
- 26.03.2026: Writ Petition No. 380 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 09.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by Justice N.J. Jamadar.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The criminal cases relied upon were stale, with CR No. 138/2017 being seven years old and CR No. 626/2021 three years old.
- No live nexus existed between those past cases and the alleged threat to public order.
- The confidential witness statements were vague, unsubstantiated, and not disclosed for cross-examination.
- The externment order failed to specify why a two-year term was necessary, violating the requirement of subjective satisfaction.
For the Respondent
- The petitioner had created a climate of fear, deterring witnesses from testifying in pending cases.
- The cumulative effect of multiple criminal cases justified preventive action under Section 56(1)(a) and (b).
- The externment was a necessary measure to prevent future offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC.
- The confidential nature of witness statements was protected under law.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the externment order dated 19.11.2024 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2025, and a declaration that the externment violated his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, imposing the maximum permissible term of two years, must record specific subjective satisfaction based on objective material, and whether reliance on stale criminal cases and non-disclosed confidential statements suffices to justify such a severe restriction on movement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. to argue that the maximum two-year externment term requires the Competent Authority to explicitly record its subjective satisfaction grounded in objective material. He contended that the reliance on crimes registered in 2017 and 2021, without any recent act of violence or threat, amounted to punitive action based on past conduct rather than preventive necessity. He further argued that confidential statements, without disclosure or opportunity for rebuttal, violated principles of natural justice and rendered the order arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel contended that the cumulative effect of three pending criminal cases, particularly those involving violence and intimidation, justified preventive externment. He argued that the fear among witnesses was a legitimate public interest concern under Section 56(1)(b), and that the confidentiality of witness statements was protected under law. He maintained that the appellate authority had properly applied its mind and that judicial review should not substitute its opinion for that of the administrative authority.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, particularly Section 58, which mandates that the Competent Authority must specify the duration of the externment. The Court emphasized that while the Act permits a maximum term of two years, this is not an automatic entitlement. The authority must apply its mind to the individual circumstances and record its subjective satisfaction as to why the full term is necessary.
"On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56."
The Court noted that the impugned order contained no reasoning as to why the petitioner required a two-year restriction. It did not assess whether a shorter term would suffice, nor did it link the duration to any specific threat posed by the petitioner at the time of the order. The reliance on crimes from 2017 and 2021, without any intervening act of violence or credible threat, rendered the temporal nexus speculative.
The Court further held that the use of confidential witness statements, without disclosure or opportunity for the petitioner to challenge them, violated the principles of natural justice. The order’s reference to a "reign of terror" was conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. The Court observed that if the two older cases were excluded, the remaining case (CR No. 408/2023) appeared to be a direct offshoot of the earlier dispute and insufficient to justify a two-year externment.
The Court concluded that the failure to record subjective satisfaction regarding the duration of externment rendered the order arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. The restriction imposed was disproportionate and not the least restrictive means available.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The externment order dated 19th November 2024 and the appellate order dated 10th December 2025 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner’s right to move freely within the districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, and Raigad stands restored. No further externment order shall be passed against the petitioner on the same grounds without compliance with the requirements of Section 58 and the mandate of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Subjective Satisfaction Must Be Explicitly Recorded
- Practitioners must now insist that externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act explicitly state why the maximum two-year term is necessary.
- Blanket imposition of two-year restrictions without individualized reasoning is unsustainable.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the duration is proportionate to the threat, not merely the maximum allowed.
Stale Cases Cannot Form the Sole Basis for Externment
- Criminal cases older than three years, absent recent conduct or credible threat, cannot justify preventive externment.
- The "live link" between past offences and present danger must be demonstrated with concrete evidence.
- Reliance on subjudice cases alone, without evidence of ongoing threat, is legally insufficient.
Confidential Statements Require Procedural Fairness
- Confidential witness statements cannot be the sole or primary basis for externment without disclosure to the affected person.
- The right to rebut allegations is fundamental under Article 14 and Article 21.
- Authorities must balance confidentiality with the right to a fair hearing.
