Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Externment Order Against Tushar Anand

Court Finds Lack of Material Evidence and Violation of Fundamental Rights in Externment Case

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed the externment order against Tushar Anand, a resident of Betul, Madhya Pradesh. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with statutory conditions under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, for passing any externment order.

The case arose from an appeal filed by Tushar Anand challenging the order of externment issued by the District Magistrate, Betul, dated November 21, 2024. The externment order was based on a recommendation from the Superintendent of Police citing Anand's past criminal record, which included 12 registered cases. It directed Anand to leave Betul and nearby districts for a year, citing danger to public safety and witnesses' reluctance to testify due to fear.

Anand's counsel, Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, argued that the externment order lacked application of mind as many cases against Anand resulted in acquittals and were of trivial nature. Furthermore, he highlighted discrepancies in the recommendation letter and the lack of urgency or new criminal incidents leading to the externment order. Anand claimed he was not engaged in any criminal activities, and the order was based on outdated information.

The court examined the provisions of Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, which mandates two conditions for externment: reasonable grounds for believing a person is engaged or about to engage in specified offences, and witnesses being unwilling to testify due to safety concerns. The court found no immediate threat or sufficient evidence to justify the externment.

Furthermore, the court underscored the serious infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution posed by externment orders. It reiterated the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to scrutinize such orders and protect individual liberties.

In its judgment, the court noted the absence of cogent material supporting the externment order and criticized the mechanical application of law by authorities. It emphasized that externment orders must be based on concrete evidence of threat or harm, which was missing in Anand's case. The court also highlighted procedural lapses, including the delayed issuance of the externment order and misidentification in official documents.

The High Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in the application of externment laws, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring judicial oversight in cases affecting personal liberty.

Bottom Line:

Externment orders under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 require strict compliance with conditions under Section 5; mere past criminal record or mechanical application cannot justify externment orders.

Statutory provision(s): Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 Sections 5(a), 5(b), and 7; Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 19 and 21; Article 226 of the Constitution.

Tushar @ Nandi @ Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2808452