LI Network
Published on: 25 August 2023 at 11:45 IST
The Karnataka High Court has recently invalidated an externment order against an individual who committed the same offense three times between 2015 and 2022 [Mahantayya v. State of Karnataka].
Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked, “Interpreting the order in the context of the offenses and the legal provisions, it becomes evident as a clear instance of misusing authority to restrict an individual’s fundamental rights.”
The Court recognized that an externment order infringes upon an individual’s fundamental rights, emphasizing that such power to curtail these rights must be exercised sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
This is due to Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to freedom of movement.
The Court was handling a case involving an individual charged with three violations, all under Section 78(3) (public gambling) of the Karnataka Police Act. The incidents took place in 2015, 2021, and 2022, and were resolved through the payment of fines.
Nonetheless, a report recommending the petitioner’s externment from Bailhongal to another location was produced, leading to a show cause notice. The petitioner defended himself before the Assistant Commissioner, but the externment order was issued on July 28, 2023.
The order banished the petitioner from the Bailhongal sub-division to Bagalkot District for three months.
The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, asserting that his fundamental rights were compromised by citing offenses that were non-cognizable and settled with fines, rendering the externment order an abuse of power.
In response, the State argued that the petitioner had become a menace to society and that due procedure was adhered to before the externment order was passed.
The Court noted that Section 56(g) of the Karnataka Police Act permits an externment order if an individual engages in offenses under Sections 78, 79, and 80, but only if this happens three times within three years. This condition was not met in the present case.
The order, without sufficient basis, painted the petitioner as a threat to society, the Court concluded. As such, the order failed the test of reasonableness as required under Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the Court granted the writ petition, nullifying the untenable externment order.
