The Bombay High Court has set aside a one-year externment order issued against a political activist, sharply criticising Mumbai Police for using the measure against a person involved in peaceful protests. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that such action raised serious constitutional concerns and questioned whether authorities were attempting to "turn citizens into slaves of the government" by initiating criminal proceedings against individuals expressing dissent. The court emphasised that the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression are protected under the Constitution.

The case was filed by Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the 49-year-old General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who challenged a December 2025 order directing him to remain outside Mumbai for one year. The externment order was based on multiple police cases registered between 2019 and 2024, primarily related to protests organised without prior police permission on issues including the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and matters concerning the Babri Masjid and Gyanvapi mosque.

During the hearings, Chaudhary argued that the externment order was politically motivated and intended to prevent him from participating in public activities ahead of important civic elections. His legal counsel contended that the criminal cases cited by police involved relatively minor offences carrying a maximum punishment of one month's imprisonment and did not justify invoking an extraordinary legal measure ordinarily reserved for habitual offenders or persons posing a threat to public safety.

Also Read: Milind Deora Blames BMC For Preventable Mumbai Manhole Deaths

The state government defended the police action, maintaining that the protests had been conducted despite permission being denied by the authorities. However, the High Court observed that there was no material to establish that Chaudhary posed any danger to public order, safety or property. Justice Jamdar noted that externment orders must be exercised with caution and only in cases where legal requirements are clearly satisfied.

In its observations, the court reminded the police that they are accountable to the public and not to political authorities. The judge stressed that raising slogans against governments or political leaders, when done peacefully, falls within the scope of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression. The court also referred to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, underscoring that citizens cannot be deprived of their liberty or dignity without a valid legal basis.

Allowing the petition, the Bombay High Court concluded that the externment order lacked sufficient legal justification and had been issued in bad faith. The judgment reaffirmed that peaceful dissent remains a fundamental component of a democratic society and that extraordinary preventive powers cannot be used to curb lawful political expression. The ruling is expected to serve as an important reminder of the constitutional safeguards protecting civil liberties and freedom of expression in India.

Also Read: Court Backs Vadhvan Port Project Despite Environmental Trade-Offs in Coastal Zone