The Bombay High Court has quashed the externment orders issued by Mumbai Police against two office-bearers of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), describing the action as "totally illegal" and "drastic". The two party functionaries had been externed from Mumbai for one year in connection with their participation in protests related to cement godowns in Chembur-Govandi, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the Babri Masjid issue. During the hearing, the court questioned whether the police action had been applied selectively while participants from other political parties were not subjected to similar measures.

The High Court observed that workers from parties such as the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) had also taken part in the same protests but were not proceeded against through externment orders. The bench orally questioned whether the petitioners had been singled out merely because they belonged to a particular religion, raising concerns about equal treatment under the law. The remarks came while examining the legality and justification of the police action.

The police had relied on multiple first information reports (FIRs), including one related to protests over the Babri Masjid demolition, to justify the externment orders. During the proceedings, however, the court questioned how expressing the view that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished could be treated as an anti-national act. The judge observed that citizens are entitled to express their opinions within the framework of the law and that freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right.

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

The court also examined the issue of permissions for public demonstrations. When the authorities argued that protesters should obtain prior permission before holding protests, the bench questioned why such permissions were allegedly being denied in the first place. The judge remarked that refusing permission while later taking action against participants contributed to the very situation the authorities sought to prevent.

After considering the submissions, the High Court set aside the externment orders, holding that the action taken by the police was not legally sustainable. The bench found the orders to be disproportionate and lacking adequate justification under the applicable provisions governing externment. As a result, the restrictions imposed on the two SDPI functionaries were quashed.

The ruling highlights the judiciary's scrutiny of preventive measures such as externment, particularly where questions arise over proportionality, freedom of expression and equal application of the law. While the court's observations were made in the context of this specific case, the judgment reinforces that administrative actions affecting individual liberty must be supported by lawful, objective and non-discriminatory grounds.

Also Read: Kunal Kamra's Plea Against Sahyog Portal: Bombay HC Seeks Centre Response