Case Title: Mahantayya And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 104804/2023
Date of Order: 08-08-2023
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has invalidated an order of removal issued by the authorities against an individual named Mahantayya. He had previously been expelled from the Bailhongal Subdivision to Bagalkot for a duration of three months.
FACTS
The petitioner approached the court to challenge an order issued on July 28, 2023 by the Assistant Commissioner cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bailhongal under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act. The petitioner contended that their fundamental rights were violated since they were being penalized for non-cognizable offenses that had already been closed through fines.
On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the petitioner had become a threat to society, necessitating action. They asserted that all proper legal procedures were followed before issuing the order for the petitioner’s externment.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad said,
“Provisions of law which empower externment of a person would undoubtedly mean that there should be minimum proximity or necessity for passing an order of externment. There is no proximate incident that is narrated in the impugned order. Without any foundation the order projects the petitioner as a bane to the society or the surrounding area.”
Upon reviewing the cases against the petitioner, the court noted that the petitioner was currently not involved in any criminal activities and that the pending cases were related to non-cognizable offenses. The court highlighted that according to Section 56(g) of the Karnataka Police Act, externment could only be ordered if a person was involved in offenses under Sections 78, 79, and 80 of the Act three times within three years. This criterion was not met in the present case. The court criticized the externment order, which portrayed the petitioner as a dangerous criminal capable of disturbing the peace of the area. The court concluded that the order seemed to misuse the power to infringe on a person’s fundamental rights.
The court emphasized that the act of externment curtails an individual’s fundamental rights, and this power should only be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, as a citizen’s right to movement is protected by Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution.
Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the court reasoned that when considering the case within the framework of the law and the principles established in the Deepak case, the challenged order would lose its legal basis and become unsustainable. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner’s request and allowed the petition.
“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.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
