The Delhi High Court has delivered a crucial ruling stating that externment orders, designed to restrict an individual’s movement, cannot be employed as a tool to strip people of their liberty and their right to earn a living, especially when the grounds for such orders are unsubstantiated.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna highlighted that externment orders are an exceptional measure, significantly limiting an individual’s freedom. She stressed that these orders should not be issued in a routine or mechanical fashion.
“While the police undoubtedly have the significant responsibility of maintaining law and order and ensuring societal peace, this duty cannot be used to infringe upon a person’s liberty and right to livelihood based on grounds that lack proper evidence or justification,” the judge stated in an order issued on October 10.
The court clarified that an externment order is not a formal judicial determination of guilt for an offense. Instead, it falls within the purview of maintaining public order, particularly in situations where crime escalation necessitates restricting an individual’s movements, measures that might seem excessive under normal circumstances.
The court recognized that the ramifications of such an order extend beyond merely preventing someone from residing in their home with their family. It can also lead to the complete loss of their means of livelihood.
Justice Krishna’s remarks came as she considered an application filed by an individual challenging an externment order that had been upheld by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, despite being initially issued by the Delhi Police.
The applicant’s case was that they had faced trial in eight criminal cases by 2021 and were acquitted in all but one, where a small fine was imposed after pleading guilty.
The challenge to the externment order was based on several grounds, including the lack of sufficient evidence, procedural flaws, and a violation of natural justice principles.
The applicant further claimed to have been living peacefully and working as an event supervisor since 2018, asserting that they had faced harassment from local criminals and certain police officials due to their cooperation with the police as an informer.
The police, in their defense, argued that the applicant was a dangerous individual with a history of involvement in various offenses over 18 years, posing a threat to public safety.
However, the judge noted that all cases against the applicant had concluded with acquittals. Crucially, there was no evidence on record to suggest that these acquittals were a result of witness intimidation or any conduct attributable to the applicant.
The court concluded that merely having cases registered against an individual is insufficient grounds to justify issuing an externment order.
“There has been no evidence presented to demonstrate that this individual is so desperate or dangerous that their presence in the community, if allowed to remain at large, would pose a hazard,” the judge added.