Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that an externment order under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 cannot be issued in a routine manner, as such directions significantly limit an individual’s fundamental rights and personal liberty. The Court set aside the orders requiring the appellant to leave Betul and adjoining districts, finding no evidence of recent conduct indicating imminent involvement in offences or any basis to conclude that witnesses were unwilling to testify. The matter concerned preventive action sought on the strength of earlier allegations, which the Bench concluded did not satisfy the statutory requirements for removal from a district.

The proceedings arose from a recommendation submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Betul, on 22 March 2024 seeking initiation of externment action against an individual under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The recommendation referred to multiple past criminal cases and stated that witnesses were unwilling to depose due to apprehension. Based on this, the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Act on 19 April 2024 and recorded statements of witnesses.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal In Wilful Default Eviction Case; “mere filing of an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay” As No Stay Was Obtained Against Fair Rent Order

Thereafter, on 21 November 2024, the District Magistrate passed an externment order directing the individual to leave Betul and certain adjoining districts for one year. The order referenced earlier offences, including cases registered under the IPC and Gambling Act, along with one complaint filed in 2024.

The individual challenged the order before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on 18 February 2025. The matter was then brought before the High Court through a writ petition, where it was contended that most earlier cases had either ended in acquittal or were minor, that the recommendation referred to another person, and that no recent incident indicated risk to public order. It was also submitted that no material demonstrated unwillingness of witnesses to depose. The State supported the externment action on the basis of the individual’s prior criminal history.

The Court stated that Section 5 of the 1990 Act permits action where “the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property” or where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that a person is engaged or about to be engaged in specified offences and witnesses are unwilling to come forward due to apprehension.

The Bench recorded that no incident “of causing any danger to any person or property in close proximity of order was mentioned in the impugned order.” It further observed that “sufficient material was not available on record to show that there was any immediate engagement of the offender in commission of offence.” The Court added that passing such orders mechanically is impermissible because “the externment order casts serious restrictions on the fundamental rights and personal liberty of any person.”

The Court examined the list of offences and noted that “except Crime No.272/2016 and 754/2021 no other case was registered for commission of an offence of heinous nature so as to attract the provisions of Act, 1990.” It further stated that the witnesses examined “did not support the police case and nothing was deposed against the appellant.” It found no material to indicate the appellant’s presence was undesirable or that externment was essential for maintaining law and order.

The Bench observed that for externment to sustain, “the alleged offence should have close proximity to the order of externment and there should be specific finding that witnesses are not coming forward.” However, “there is no close proximity of any heinous offence” except one minor case in 2024, and other offences involved gambling or preventive action not relevant for externment.

The Court noted that the Superintendent of Police’s application itself contained the request “to pass an order of externment against one Golu s/o Prabhakar Solanki,” yet the order was issued against the appellant. It recorded that no offence occurred during the seven-to-eight-month gap between the recommendation and the order, indicating absence of urgency or ongoing threat.

The Court observed that “sufficient material was not available on record” and that both the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate had acted “without application of mind,” failing to meet the statutory requirements of Section 5 of the 1990 Act.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Objection To Revision Challenging Election Order; Filing ₹250 Security Deposit On Same Day As Presentation Meets Compliance Under Municipality (Election Petition) Rules

The Court directed: “Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the District Magistrate, Betul on 21.11.2024, Divisional Commissioner, Narmadapuram on 18.02.2025 and learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8689/2025 on 02.04.2025 are hereby set aside. In the result, the appellant is free to enter the boundaries of District Betul and other adjoining districts. With the aforesaid, appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey – Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Ritwik Parashar – Government Advocate

Case Title: Tushar @ Nandi @ Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:55808
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Vinay Saraf