Bombay HC Quashes Seven-Month Externment Orders Against Four Mumbai Men

The Bombay High Court has quashed externment orders issued by the Mumbai Police against four men, ruling that the action amounted to an infringement of their fundamental rights and raising serious concerns about the arbitrary use of police powers. In a strongly worded judgment, the court questioned whether citizens were being reduced to "slaves of the government" through such measures. The externment orders, issued between December 2025 and early 2026, had barred the four men from entering Mumbai for several months, significantly disrupting their personal and family lives.

The four individuals—Saeed Ahmed Abdul Wahid Choudhary, Akbar Hussain Sayyed, Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari and Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan—challenged the orders before the High Court after being forced to live outside the city. According to the petitioners, the restrictions prevented them from remaining with their families and carrying out their normal livelihoods. Choudhary stayed in a rented room in Mumbra for nearly seven months, while Sayyed was separated from his wife, infant daughter and ailing mother. Ansari was unable to meet his elderly mother, and Khan missed the birth of his second child during the period of externment.

The externment orders were primarily based on First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the men in connection with political protests held in 2019 and 2025. The demonstrations related to issues including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Ayodhya Ram Temple and other political developments. The police argued that the externment was necessary to maintain public order and prevent activities likely to disturb peace.

Also Read: Bombay HC Sets Aside Externment of Two SDPI Functionaries

However, the High Court found that the authorities had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify such a severe restriction on the petitioners' freedom of movement. The bench observed that externment is an extraordinary measure that directly affects an individual's constitutional rights and cannot be imposed mechanically or merely because criminal cases have been registered. It stressed that every such order must be supported by credible material demonstrating an immediate and genuine threat to public order.

In its observations, the court criticised the manner in which the externment powers had been exercised and underscored that constitutional protections cannot be curtailed without following due process. The judges remarked that if such powers are used without adequate justification, it raises concerns about whether citizens are being treated as "slaves of the government" rather than individuals entitled to constitutional freedoms. The court reiterated that preventive measures must always satisfy the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality.

Quashing the externment orders, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that restrictions on personal liberty and movement must withstand strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be based solely on past political protests or pending criminal cases. The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent on the limits of police powers under externment laws, reinforcing that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must be backed by substantial evidence and comply with constitutional safeguards.

Also Read: Lawyers Mobilise to Protect Rights of Detained Student Protesters