Case title : Rajjan @ Ashu Chauhan vs. The State of NCT of Delhi
Case No. W.P. (CRL) 955/2024
Dated on: Reserved on 22nd April,2024 ; Pronounced on 21st May,2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, a habitual offender with a criminal record from 2017 to 2022, faced externment proceedings initiated by the police due to his persistent involvement in crimes such as cheating, criminal trespass, breach of trust, forgery, extortion, assault, and intimidation. Witnesses, who were too fearful to testify publicly, provided in-camera statements describing how the petitioner, often accompanied by armed associates, created a climate of fear and threatened those who opposed his illegal activities. The competent authority, after reviewing the statements and other relevant materials, concluded that the petitioner’s continuous presence was hazardous to the public, necessitating his externment under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Despite the petitioner’s challenge to the scope and duration of the externment, the court upheld the order, emphasizing that it was based on credible evidence and aimed at ensuring public safety. The Lieutenant Governor later reduced the externment period from two years to one year, but the geographical scope remained the entire National Capital Territory of Delhi to effectively address enforcement challenges.
ISSUES
- The legality and validity of the externment order issued against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, questioning the sufficiency of evidence and the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
- The geographical scope of the externment order, specifically questioning why the entire National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was included and not just the specific area associated with the alleged offences or concerns related to the petitioner’s activities.
- The duration and proportionality of the externment order, considering whether the initially set duration of two years (later reduced to one year) is proportionate to the alleged offences and whether the imposition of the order aligns with principles of fairness and necessity.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978: This section empowers the competent authority to external individuals from specific areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi if their presence is deemed hazardous to society.
- Section 56(1)(bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951: While not explicitly mentioned in the text, the case refers to the provisions of this act to outline the grounds and procedures for externment orders.
- Precedents and Case Law: The court referred to various judgments, including Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharastra, (1973) 1 SCC 372, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 7 SCC 330. These judgments provide precedents and interpretations related to the legal aspects of externment orders, including the requirements for sufficient evidence, procedural fairness, and the scope of such orders.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the externment order issued against the appellant was excessive and lacked proper reasoning. They contended that the order should have been more specific regarding the area of externment and the reasons behind selecting the NCT of Delhi as the externment area. The appellant’s counsel raised concerns about the lack of a clear link between the offences registered against the appellant between 2017-2022 and the externment order issued in 2024. They argued that this lack of connection undermined the validity of the externment order.The appellant’s counsel also questioned the sufficiency of the material considered by the competent authority in reaching its decision. They argued that there was a lack of opportunity given to the appellant to adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the offences and the grounds for the externment order. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s challenge to the legality and validity of the externment order in the case.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The contentions of the respondent are not explicitly mentioned.The casemainly focuses on the arguments and observations made by the court regarding the petitioner’s case and the legal provisions relevant to it. The potential contentions that the respondent might have made in the case is that the respondent may argue that the externment order was necessary to maintain public safety and order in the locality where the petitioner was active. They could assert that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in criminal activities, as documented by the competent authority, posed a significant threat to the peace and security of the community. The respondent could contend that witnesses were reluctant to come forward and testify against the petitioner in public due to fear of retaliation. They might argue that the petitioner and his associates used intimidation tactics, such as threats of violence, to silence potential witnesses, thereby obstructing justice and impeding law enforcement efforts. Another contention could be that the petitioner demonstrated a pattern of habitual criminal behaviour, as evidenced by his involvement in multiple criminal cases over a significant period. The respondent may argue that the externment order was justified based on the petitioner’s persistent engagement in illegal activities and the need to protect society from further harm. These contentions would likely support the respondent’s position that the externment order was justified and necessary for the maintenance of law and order in the community.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court’s analysis and judgement provide a comprehensive overview of the case, meticulously examining the arguments presented by both parties and applying legal precedents to reach a verdict.
The judgement begins by addressing the petitioner’s awareness of the proceedings initiated by the police station and the ample opportunity provided to explain the circumstances. It then proceeds to discuss the petitioner’s contention regarding the link between the offences registered from 2017-2022 and the externment order passed in 2024. This includes citing the Competent Authority’s reasoning for the externment order, which was based on evidence such as witness statements recorded in camera.
Legal precedents, particularly judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, are referenced to provide a framework for evaluating externment orders. Cases like Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharashtra, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra are quoted to support the court’s analysis. These precedents establish the criteria for passing an externment order and the circumstances under which such orders can be upheld.
One significant aspect addressed in the judgement is the contention regarding the excessiveness of the externment order, particularly concerning the area of externment. The court compares the present case to previous rulings to determine if the order was justified based on the circumstances. It examines whether the area chosen for externment was proportionate to the petitioner’s unlawful activities and whether it served the intended purpose of maintaining public order and safety.
The judgement also mentions that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor had already reduced the period of externment from two years to one year, indicating a consideration of the severity of the order. This reduction reflects a balance between the need for public safety and the petitioner’s rights.
In conclusion, the court finds that the externment order and the subsequent reduction by the Lieutenant Governor do not suffer from any error. Therefore, it dismisses the petition and disposes of it accordingly. The judgement directs the immediate uploading of the judgement on the court’s website, ensuring transparency and accessibility to the public.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
