Bombay High Court Quashes SDPI Leader’s Externment, Says Citizens Cannot Be Punished for Peaceful Protests

The court held that such action violated constitutional protections and questioned the legal basis for the externment.

Court Highlights Constitutional Rights

During the hearing, Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that citizens have the constitutional right to express their views and live with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Questioning the government’s stand, the court asked how anti-government slogans alone could justify an externment order.

The judge also remarked that police officers are public servants and should act independently while enforcing the law.

Background of the Case

Chaudhary challenged an externment order issued on December 3, 2025, which directed him to leave Mumbai within two days and remain outside the city for 12 months.

The action followed an externment proposal submitted by a senior police officer in October 2025.

According to the authorities, Chaudhary had organised protests, demonstrations and public meetings on various issues since 2019.

Reasons Cited by Police

Police alleged that Chaudhary participated in protests against several central government policies, including:

• Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
• National Register of Citizens (NRC)
• Waqf (Amendment) Bill

The externment order stated that his speeches and protest activities allegedly caused traffic disruption and raised law-and-order concerns.

Authorities argued that these activities disturbed public peace.

Petitioner Challenged the Order

In his petition before the High Court, Chaudhary argued that the externment order prevented him from carrying out his political responsibilities, including campaigning during local body elections.

He also questioned the legality of the order and sought its cancellation.

Court Finds Action ‘Malafide’

While allowing the petition, the High Court observed that the externment proceedings appeared to be “malafide” and were inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.

The court ruled that the order violated the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21, stating that citizens have both the right to express their opinions and the right to live with dignity.

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling reiterates that peaceful expression of political views and participation in lawful protests are protected constitutional rights.

The judgment also highlights that administrative actions restricting an individual’s liberty must satisfy constitutional standards and be supported by legally sustainable grounds.