Deepak Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra: Externment Order Quashed

The case of Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra revolved around the externment order issued against the appellant under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether the externment was justified and upheld the constitutional rights of the appellant.

The appellant, a resident of Mandeolgaon, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna, was ordered to remove himself from District Jalna within five days and was externed for a period of two years. The decision was based on multiple registered offences and confidential statements from witnesses. The matter was challenged in the Bombay High Court, which upheld the externment order. However, the Supreme Court set aside the order, finding it arbitrary and without proper justification.

Background of the Case

On December 15, 2020, an externment order was issued against Deepak Dongre by respondent No.2, citing his alleged criminal activities that caused public alarm. The authorities relied on the following registered offences:

Crime No. 367/2013 – Sections 452, 324, 504, and 34 of IPC (Acquitted)
Crime No. 247/2018 – Sections 354, 354(a), 323, 504, 506, 509, 34 of IPC (Pending in Court)
Crime No. 378/2018 – Sections 307, 325, 323, 341, 201, 120(B), 405, 506, 507, 37 of IPC (Pending in Court)
Crime No. 15/2020 – Sections 354, 354(a), 354(d), 509, 506 of IPC (Pending in Court)
Crime No. 215/2020 – Sections 509, 501, 506 with 67, 67(a) of IT Act (Under Investigation)

Additionally, confidential statements from two witnesses (‘A’ and ‘B’) were presented, stating that they were unwilling to testify publicly against the appellant due to fear.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, challenged the externment order on the following grounds:

The order was a result of a political vendetta initiated by local MLA Narayan Kuche, who had personal enmity with the appellant.
One of the key complaints (Crime No. 15/2020) was filed by Varsha Bankar at the behest of the MLA, and she later admitted in her police statement that she was instructed to make calls and send messages to the appellant.
Three out of the five offences listed were outdated, with no recent criminal activity proving a continuing threat to public order.
The confidential witness statements were generic and lacked specific allegations against the appellant.
A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on July 7, 2020, but no fresh offences were registered after June 2020, indicating no ongoing criminal behavior.
On June 2, 2020, a proposal to detain the appellant under Section 151 of CrPC was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The externment order failed to justify why the appellant was removed for the maximum period of two years.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Maharashtra, represented by Sachin Patil, defended the externment order on the following grounds:

The authorities had subjective satisfaction based on confidential reports and the nature of offences, justifying the externment.
The Maharashtra Police Act allowed externment orders based on the fear among witnesses and the necessity of maintaining public order.
The appellant had a criminal history, and his removal from the district was required to ensure peace.
The High Court had reviewed the grounds of externment and found them valid, dismissing the appellant’s challenge.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, examined the case and made the following critical observations:

Violation of Fundamental Rights: The externment order infringed upon the fundamental right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
Failure to Establish Threat: The confidential witness statements lacked specific evidence to establish a genuine threat to public safety.
Outdated Offences: Three out of the five offences cited were from 2013 and 2018, with no direct link to the necessity of externment in 2020.
Improper Justification for Two-Year Period: The order failed to explain why the appellant was externed for the maximum permissible period.
Malafide Intent: The involvement of a local MLA raised concerns that the externment was politically motivated rather than legally justified.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the externment order and set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The key rulings were:

The externment order dated December 15, 2020, was declared null and void.
The High Court’s decision upholding the externment was overturned.
The maximum two-year externment period was found to be arbitrary and without justification.
The case emphasized that externment should be an extraordinary measure applied only when there is clear evidence of public danger.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces legal principles that safeguard individual rights against arbitrary state action. Key takeaways include:

Externment Must Be Justified: Authorities cannot extern individuals without providing a clear and valid reason backed by evidence.
Protection Against Political Vendetta: The ruling prevents misuse of police powers for settling personal or political disputes.
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts have the power to review externment orders and ensure they adhere to constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court’s verdict serves as a significant precedent in cases involving externment and reinforces the need for fair legal procedures.

Petitioner Name: Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra.
Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Jalna, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 28-01-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: deepak-so-laxman-do-vs-state-of-maharashtra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-01-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category