Setting aside a Mumbai Police externment order against a political activist, the Bombay High Court Thursday observed that merely arranging a morcha or a protest against “certain decisions” of the BJP-led government at the Centre could not be a ground for externment, affecting the person’s fundamental rights.
Referring to a plea by 49-year-old Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, who said he was general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and had been externed for a year, the single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar asked police if citizens were being made “slaves of the government” by slapping cases for opposing government decisions, and why they could not stage protests.
Justice Jamdar sought to know why an externment order was issued by Mumbai Police relying on FIRs related to earlier protests by the petitioner where slogans including ‘BJP government murdabad’, ‘Amit Shah murdabad’ were raised.
Referring to the recent exam paper leak case and the petitioner’s contention, he inquired why citizens cannot stage protests or raise slogans.
“It is the right of the citizens to protest. The petitioner has just raised slogans like ‘BJP government murdabad’, ‘Amit Shah murdabad’… Why can’t citizens raise such slogans and why externment orders for such slogans?” Justice Jamdar said.
Court cautions police
Cautioning the police, he said they were servants of the public and not that of top government functionaries.
Petitioner Chaudhary had challenged the December 3, 2025 externment order of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6- Chembur area). He had been externed for a year.
Story continues below this ad
Chaudhary’s plea claimed that the externment proceedings began with a show cause notice in October 2025 on the basis of multiple FIRs registered against him between 2019 and 2024 relating to protests. He alleged the action kept him away during civic elections, amounting to “stifling legitimate democratic dissent.”
Advocates Payoshi Roy and Ibraheem Harbat, appearing for Chaudhary, had submitted that all the FIRs were registered against the petitioner under IPC Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) for protests he organised or participated in including those related to the government’s decisions on the CAA and NRC, the issue of the Babri Masjid, and the sealing at the Gyanvapi mosque.
The lawyers said none of these could attract Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act empowering the police to pass an externment order against a person about to commit an offence of causing danger, injury to person or property.
Roy said Chaudhary was externed merely for organising or participating in protests without giving him an opportunity to prove himself innocent and, therefore, the action against him should be set aside.
Story continues below this ad
The state lawyer pointed to certain slogans raised by the petitioner and other protestors and argued that the action was in accordance with the law as the protests were held despite the police authorities having refused permission.
Referring to recent incidents of legislators in Maharashtra switching parties through “horse trading happening across the country,” Justice Jamdar, in a lighter vein, remarked that petitioner could also have considered switching through a “washing machine”.
In his order, Justice Jamdar described the Mumbai Police action as “vitiated” and “mala fide” and observed that “citizens have freedom to express their opinion” and “live with dignity” as per Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Jamdar observed that there was “no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the Petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property”.
Story continues below this ad
The judge noted that the allegations relate to an offence under Section 188 of the IPC, punishable with a maximum of a one-month jail term.
“However, that cannot be a ground for passing the externment order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act,” the order reads.
Justice Jamdar noted the “settled legal position that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure and effect of such order is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.”
The bench, while setting aside the externment action relied on past Supreme Court and High Court verdicts and held, “The action taken by the Respondent–State of Maharashtra of externing the Petitioner, merely for opposing certain decisions of the Government of India, affects the Petitioner’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and also right to live with dignity.”
