The Karnataka High Court has emphasized the importance of considering both objective material and the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority when issuing an externment order.
In a case filed by Mali Rizwan, a single judge bench presided over by Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partially granted the petition and nullified the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate that had directed Rizwan’s removal from Kundapura to Sagara Sub-Division for a period of three months. The court stated: “The objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction. Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. The impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and test of reasonableness.”
The petitioner argued that the initiation of the proceedings against him was based on a requisition made by the Sub-Inspector of Police at Gangoli Police Station. In that requisition, a request had been made to extern the petitioner for a period of six months, from October 2021 to March 2022.
The prosecution contested the plea, arguing that the petitioner was involved in ten cases and that his presence in the area was causing disruptions to law and order.
The court initially acknowledged that the request for the petitioner’s externment was for a six-month period from October 2021 to March 2022. However, the impugned order, which was issued on March 14, 2023, stipulated a three-month externment period. The court remarked, “This shows without any request the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned Order.”
Taking into account that six out of the ten cases against the petitioner had resulted in acquittals, two cases had pending charge sheets awaiting investigation, and one case was still under investigation, the court concluded, “Soon before passing the impugned order, there is no objective material placed for subjective satisfaction.”
The court cited a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that the competent authority must document its subjective satisfaction that the actions or movements of an individual are causing or likely to cause alarm, danger, or harm to individuals or property.
Consequently, the court referred the case back to the Executive Magistrate, granting the competent authority the freedom to initiate new proceedings, provided that they adhere to the statutory requirements.
