Externment orders bring societal & personal deprivation: HC

Court says externment order violates right of a person to have his domicile at the place of his choice

Published - May 11, 2017 01:12 am IST - New Delhi

The Delhi High Court has quashed an externment order against a man, saying these proceedings, which are meant to keep criminals away from an area, also cause societal and personal deprivation for such persons.

The court said that an order of externment “makes an inroad into the cherished and valuable right of a person to have his domicile at the place of his choice” and adversely affects the finances of the externee.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar made the observations while quashing an externment order of the Delhi police and the Lieutenant-Governor, issued against one Jugal Kishore barring him from entering the city for a period of two years.

“There can be no dispute that an externment order brings in societal and personal deprivation and is a great blow on the finances of the externee,” the Judge said.

The accused was, however, allowed to enter Delhi only to attend the court proceedings pending against him.

Named in many FIRs

The police initiates externment proceedings to ensure that criminals are kept away so that they are dislodged from ’their area’ and are unable to create trouble.

Kishore was named in over eight FIRs relating to house trespass, rioting, gambling besides various other serious offence.

The police had externed him in May 2015, which was later upheld by the L-G, after they had found that his presence would be hazardous to the community.

While the court agreed that such stringent measures were required to be taken against law breakers, it was of the view that “at the same time, the rights and liberties of a person cannot be lightly interfered with and has to be guarded with utmost zeal”.

There must be a clear and present danger in allowing a man to remain at large for permitting an order of externment against him, it said.

In the instant case, the court said: “There is no sufficient reason to believe that the petitioner was so desperate and dangerous that his presence in Delhi or any part thereof would be hazardous to the community and its safety”.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.