The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment quashing an externment order against an individual, emphasizing that such orders cannot be issued arbitrarily to curtail a person’s liberty or right to livelihood without credible and substantiated grounds. The Court highlighted that an externment order is an extraordinary legal measure with serious consequences, including preventing a person from residing in a particular area, staying with their family, or earning a livelihood. The Court stressed that such orders must be applied judiciously and based on evidence rather than conjecture or unverified reports.
The matter arose when a man, who had been acquitted in eight criminal cases and had paid a fine in another, faced an externment order from local authorities. Despite his acquittals, the police claimed that he was a dangerous criminal involved in various offences over an 18-year period and posed a threat to public safety. The individual, on the other hand, submitted that he had been living peacefully since 2018 and was employed as an event supervisor. He further contended that the hostility from local criminals and certain police officials stemmed from his cooperation with law enforcement as an informer, rather than any ongoing criminal activity on his part.
The Delhi High Court carefully examined the facts and noted that the mere registration of multiple cases against an individual over time does not, in itself, justify the issuance of an externment order. The Court observed that acquittals in the majority of the cases indicated that the individual had not engaged in criminal conduct warranting restriction of his liberty. It also pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that he had threatened witnesses or committed any acts that would endanger public safety. The Court found that the reasons cited in the externment order were unsubstantiated and lacked the credible documentation required to restrict fundamental rights such as freedom of movement and the ability to earn a livelihood.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, hearing the matter, noted that the issuance of an externment order must not be mechanical or routine. It must involve a careful balancing of the state’s interest in maintaining law and order with the individual’s fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the state cannot curtail liberty or livelihood without demonstrating, through credible evidence, that such restrictions are necessary to prevent imminent danger to the community or specific individuals.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the externment order, affirming the principle that measures limiting personal freedom must be proportionate, legally justified, and based on substantiated facts. The judgment reinforces the broader legal principle that fundamental rights, including liberty of movement and the right to livelihood, cannot be infringed lightly. Arbitrary or unsubstantiated state action, even in the guise of maintaining public order, will not be tolerated by the courts.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual freedoms against excessive or arbitrary executive action. By setting aside the externment order, the Court ensured that fundamental rights are protected and clarified that any restriction on liberty must be grounded in evidence and necessity, rather than assumptions or unverified claims. This judgment serves as an important precedent emphasizing the careful and responsible exercise of state powers when issuing restrictive orders affecting individuals’ lives.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.