New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has firmly stated that externment orders, which restrict an individual’s movement, are not to be wielded as a means to infringe upon a person’s fundamental liberty and right to livelihood, especially when based on unsubstantiated grounds.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna highlighted that externment orders are extraordinary measures that limit and restrict an individual’s movement, stressing that they “must not be made in a mechanical manner.”
“While it cannot be overlooked that the police bear the significant responsibility of maintaining law and order and societal peace, these powers cannot be used to deprive individuals of their liberty and right to livelihood based on entirely unsubstantiated claims,” the judge stated in an order dated October 10.
The court clarified that an externment order is not a judicial determination of an offense but rather falls under the purview of maintaining law and order in response to escalating crime. In such contexts, restrictions are imposed on individuals that might seem unreasonable during normal times.
The High Court noted that the implications of an externment order can be severe, potentially preventing a person from residing with their family and leading to the loss of their livelihood.
Justice Krishna made these remarks while considering an application filed by an individual challenging an externment order that had been upheld by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, initially issued by the Delhi Police.
The applicant’s plea indicated that he had faced trial in eight criminal cases by 2021, securing acquittal in all but one, where he paid a fine of ₹500 after pleading guilty.
The challenge to the externment order was based on claims of insufficient evidence, procedural flaws, and violations of natural justice.
Furthermore, the applicant asserted that he had been living peacefully and working as an event supervisor since 2018, but had faced harassment from local criminals and certain police officials due to his past role as a police informant.
Conversely, the police argued that the applicant was a dangerous individual, involved in various offenses over 18 years, and posed a threat to public safety.
However, the judge observed that all cases against the applicant had resulted in acquittals, with no evidence on record suggesting that these acquittals were due to witness intimidation or any actions attributable to him.
The court emphasized that merely registering cases against an individual is insufficient grounds to justify the issuance of an externment order.
“No evidence has been produced to show that he is a person so desperate or dangerous that he is hazardous to the community if allowed to be at large,” the judge concluded.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.