The Bombay High Court has set aside a Mumbai Police externment order against a political activist, observing that merely organising a morcha or protesting against certain decisions of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government at the Centre cannot be a valid ground for externment. The court said that such action strikes at the heart of constitutional freedoms and warned against using police powers to suppress democratic dissent.

The order came on a petition filed by 49-year-old Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, who said he is the general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and had been externed for one year. Justice Madhav J Jamdar, hearing the matter as a single judge, questioned the basis on which Mumbai Police had acted against the petitioner for past protests and slogan-shouting.

Referring to the police action, the judge asked whether citizens were being made “slaves of the government” by slapping cases for opposing government decisions, and why they could not stage protests. “It is the right of the citizens to protest. The petitioner has just raised slogans like ‘BJP government murdabad’, ‘Amit Shah murdabad’… Why can’t citizens raise such slogans and why externment orders for such slogans?” Justice Jamdar observed.

ALSO READ

Mumbai Police cautioned by Bombay High Court

The court also cautioned the police against acting as if they served political authority rather than the public. Justice Jamdar said police officials were servants of the public, not of top government functionaries, and should not treat peaceful political dissent as a threat warranting extraordinary action.

The externment order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6, Chembur area) on December 3, 2025. Chaudhary challenged the order, arguing that the externment proceedings began with a show-cause notice issued in October 2025 based on multiple FIRs registered between 2019 and 2024 in connection with protests.

FIRs linked to protests

Wahid Chaudhary’s plea said the FIRs against him were tied to protests and demonstrations, including those related to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Babri Masjid issue and the sealing at the Gyanvapi mosque. The Indian Express report said that his lawyers, advocates Payoshi Roy and Ibraheem Harbat, submitted that “these cases were all registered under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 188 for disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant.”

The legal team argued that such cases could not trigger Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers police to extern a person only if there is material showing that the person is about to commit an offence involving danger, injury to person or property. They contended that Chaudhary was punished merely for organising or participating in protests and was not given a fair opportunity to establish his innocence.

The state, however, defended the externment order by pointing to slogans allegedly raised by Wahid Chaudhary and other protestors and argued that the protests had been carried out despite police refusal of permission. But the court found no sufficient material to justify such a drastic step.

In its order, Justice Jamdar described the police action as “vitiated” and “mala fide”. He said citizens have the freedom to express their opinion and the right to live with dignity under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.  The judge also found that there was “no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the Petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.”

Externment called ‘extraordinary’

The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner related to an offence under Section 188 of the IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of one month’s imprisonment. “However, that cannot be a ground for passing the externment order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act,” the order said.

Justice Jamdar further emphasised the settled legal position that externment is an extraordinary measure because it deprives a citizen of the fundamental right to move freely throughout India. Relying on earlier Supreme Court and High Court rulings, the bench held that the externment order could not stand when it was based essentially on protest activity and slogan-shouting.

Ultimately, the court set aside the action of the Respondent-State of Maharashtra, holding that externing the petitioner merely for opposing certain decisions of the Government of India affected his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as his right to live with dignity.