The Bombay High Court set aside a one-year externment order that banned a political activist from entering Mumbai [1].
The ruling underscores the tension between state security measures and constitutional rights to protest. By overturning the ban, the court reaffirmed that peaceful dissent against the government does not justify the removal of a citizen's right to reside in, or visit, a city.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar presided over the case, which centered on an activist who had organized and participated in peaceful protests against the government [1]. The Mumbai Police had imposed the externment order to prevent the activist from entering the city for a period of one year [1].
During the proceedings, Justice Jamdar questioned the motives of the police in targeting individuals for their political speech. "Are you trying to turn citizens into 'slaves of the government' by slapping them with criminal cases for simply expressing dissent?" Jamdar said [1].
The court emphasized that expressing opposition to government officials is a protected right. Jamdar said that citizens can say "BJP government murdabad" and "Amit Shah murdabad" in protest [1].
The court found the police order to be an unjust attempt to suppress dissent rather than a necessary measure for public order. The ruling effectively cancels the restriction on the activist's movement and serves as a reprimand to law enforcement agencies using externment orders to silence critics [1, 2].
“"Are you trying to turn citizens into 'slaves of the government'?"”
This decision limits the ability of Indian law enforcement to use externment orders, administrative tools designed to remove habitual criminals from a jurisdiction, as a means of political censorship. It reinforces the legal precedent that criticizing specific political figures or parties does not constitute a criminal threat to public order.
