The Supreme Court has held that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against a person cannot, by itself, justify an order of externment. The Court emphasised that externment is an extraordinary preventive measure which directly affects an individual’s fundamental freedoms and therefore must be exercised sparingly, on the basis of objective material and in strict compliance with statutory safeguards.
In Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 4083 of 2026, decided on 31 August 2026, a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside an externment order directing the appellant to leave Raigarh and adjoining districts for one year under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The externment proceedings originated from a police recommendation concerning the appellant’s alleged involvement in several criminal cases registered between 2009 and 2019. The proceedings were subsequently closed after the District Magistrate noted that the appellant had been acquitted in the earlier cases and that no fresh police report had been submitted after 2019.
Subsequently, two fresh FIRs were registered. Acting upon a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate reopened the matter and passed an externment order restraining the appellant from entering Raigarh and adjoining districts for one year.
Significantly, the order was passed without providing the appellant an effective opportunity of hearing, despite the mandatory requirements under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
SUPREME COURT’S KEY FINDINGS
The Supreme Court held that notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 8 are conditions precedent to passing an externment order. The person concerned must be informed of the general nature of the material allegations and afforded an effective opportunity to explain them.
The Court further held that an administrative authority cannot review or reopen its earlier order unless such power is expressly or impliedly conferred by the governing statute. Since the District Magistrate had already closed the earlier proceedings, he could not simply revive them on the basis of subsequent developments without following the statutory procedure afresh.
The Court also rejected the proposition that multiple criminal cases automatically establish the necessity for externment. It stressed that the authority must arrive at a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction, supported by objective material demonstrating a clear nexus between the material relied upon and the necessity for such an extreme preventive measure.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & NATURAL JUSTICE
The judgment is significant because externment substantially restricts a person’s freedom of movement and residence. Consequently, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely on the basis of criminal antecedents.
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle recognised in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, that externment is not an ordinary administrative action and must be resorted to only in appropriate and extraordinary circumstances. The existence of criminal cases, without more, does not establish the statutory necessity for externment.
The Court also criticised the Chhattisgarh High Court for refusing to entertain the appellant’s writ petition merely because an alternative statutory remedy was available. Where there is an egregious violation of statutory procedure and natural justice, the existence of an alternative remedy does not necessarily prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226.
LEGAL TAKEAWAY
The judgment reinforces four important principles:
1. Multiple FIRs ≠ Automatic Externment
The mere existence of several criminal cases cannot, ipso facto, justify externment.
2. Section 8 Compliance Is Mandatory
Notice of the allegations and a meaningful opportunity of hearing are essential safeguards before an externment order can be passed.
3. Administrative Authorities Have No Inherent Power of Review
An authority cannot reopen a concluded proceeding unless the statute confers the requisite power.
4. Preventive Powers Remain Subject to Constitutional and Judicial Review
Externment must be supported by objective material, cogent reasons and a discernible nexus between the material and the preventive action proposed.
WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS
The ruling strikes a careful balance between public-order considerations and individual liberty. While the State possesses preventive powers to protect public order, those powers cannot become a mechanism for imposing restrictions merely because a person has a criminal history.
The judgment therefore reinforces a fundamental administrative-law principle: extraordinary statutory powers affecting fundamental freedoms must be exercised strictly within the limits prescribed by law, with procedural fairness and demonstrable application of mind.