Holding

The externment order is arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable in law and is therefore set aside.

Summary

Rahmat Khan, a journalist and social worker, exposed alleged misappropriation of government grants to madrasas in Amravati district and filed RTI applications and complaints against officials. In retaliation, three FIRs were lodged against him under various IPC sections, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued an externment order under s.56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, barring him from the district for one year. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the FIRs were vindictive, the criteria for externment were not met, and the order violated his fundamental right to move freely. The Supreme Court held that the externment order was arbitrary, mala fide, and not justified by any genuine threat to public order or witness safety. Consequently, the Court set aside the externment order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the externment order under s.56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is valid when based on FIRs that are alleged to be retaliatory.
Whether the statutory conditions for externment—danger to public peace or unwillingness of witnesses—were satisfied.
Whether the order infringes the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
Whether procedural safeguards under s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, including notice and opportunity to be heard, were complied with.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951s. 56, s. 57, s. 58, s. 59
Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

ExternmentMaharashtra Police ActRight to InformationMisappropriation of fundsMadrasasFundamental rightsSection 56Retaliatory FIRsAbuse of power

Judgment

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 571 571

RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH A
v.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2021)
AUGUST 25, 2021 B
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Externment
order – The State Government introduced a scheme for the upliftment
of the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim
C
children – The State announced the disbursement of grants to 33
Madrasas of Amravati District for the Financial Year 2014-2015 –
Appellant came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas,
including misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas
in the said District – Pursuant thereto, various complaints were made
– The appellant requested the Collector as also the police to D
investigate misappropriation of Government grants by Madrasas
in collusion with Government officials – In retaliation, affected
persons filed complaints against the Appellant u/ss.384, 452, 294,
506(B), 34 IPC – The appellant also filed a Public Interest Litigation
– Thereafter, appellant received a notice u/s. 56(1)(a)(b) of 1951
E
Act and externment proceedings were initiated against the appellant
by Police – By an order of externment dated 07.05.2018, the
appellant was directed not to enter or return to the District for a
period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out
of the District – Held: An externment order may sometimes be
necessary for maintenance of law and order – However the drastic F
action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to
maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public
tranquility and peace – In the instant case, it is patently clear that
the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints
lodged by the appellant against government officials, some Madrasas
G
and persons connected with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs
against the appellant – The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory
and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice –
On perusal of the responses of government authorities to queries
raised by the appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly
indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance H
571
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A – Thus, the impugned externment order cannot be sustained and is
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951 are intended to prevent lawlessness and deal with a
B class of lawless elements in society who cannot be brought to
book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial trial.
[Para 33][587-F]
2. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for
maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of
C externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain
law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public
tranquility and peace. In this case, it is patently clear that the
impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints
lodged by the Appellant against government officials, some
D Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas who later
lodged FIRs against the Appellant. The FIRs are clearly
vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant
and stifle his voice. [Para 34][587-G-H; 588-A]
3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the notices
E of externment and the impugned externment order based on
Crime Nos 344 of 2017, 352 of 2017 registered with Nagpuri
Gate Police Station and Crime No.501 of 2017 registered with
the Kotwali Police Station in Amravati City are patently arbitrary,
mala fide, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. [Para
35][588-B]
F
4. It is patently clear that pursuant to a complaint dated
14.9.2017 an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District
Collector against the Director (previously Deputy Director) of
Education, District Planning Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension
Officer Sandip Bodhke. The Inquiry Report along with
G explanation of the officers has been sent to the Chamber Officer
of the Minority Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
for further action. The Director (previously Deputy Director) of
Education, District Planning Officer lodged FIR No.501/2017
dated 13th October 2017 against the Appellant under Section 384
of the Indian Penal Code, exactly within one month from the date
H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 573
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

of the Appellant’s complaint against him, in respect of illegalities A
in relation to disbursal of funds to Madarsas. [Para 37][589-A-C]
5. The deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat,
prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint
a colour of intense gravity. It been argued that the Appellant had
been extorting money under threat of exposing the illegal B
activities of certain officials and certain Madrasas or educational
institutions. Even assuming that there was substance in the
allegation, which appears to be doubtful, an order of externment
was unwarranted. There was no reason for the complainants who
lodged the FIRs to get terrorized by the alleged threats, allegedly
meted out by the Appellant, for if those complainants had not C
indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear. Even otherwise,
threat to lodge a complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing
an order of externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951, more so, when the responses of government
authorities to queries raised by the Appellant under the Right to D
Information Act clearly indicate that the complaints are not
frivolous ones, without substance. A person cannot be denied his
fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move
freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds. [Para 40][590-
C-E]
E
6. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of
this case, where on the basis of complaints lodged by the
Appellants inquiry had been started by the concerned authorities
against government officials and educational institutions including
the complainants, who lodged the FIRs against the Appellant,
the impugned externment order which followed, cannot be F
sustained. [Para 41][590-F]
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of
Police, the State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 372 :
[1973] 3 SCR 63; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v.
Salem Hasan Khan (1989) 2 SCC 316 : [1989] 1 SCR G
970 – relied on.
Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 7 SCC
330 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 966 – referred to.

H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[1973] 3 SCR 63 relied on Para 28
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 966 referred to Para 29
[1989] 1 SCR 970 relied on Para 31
B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
884 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2021 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.19358 of 2020.
C
Anshin H. Desai, Sr. Adv., D.N. Ray, Nandish H. Thacker, Dillip
Kumar Nayak, Ms. Disha Ray, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advs. for the Appellant.
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Shakti Kanta Pattanaik, Dhruv K. Dave,
Kalpesh N. Soni, Kanu Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondents.
D The following order of the Court was passed:
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 29th
E January, 2021 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 490 of
2018 filed by the Appellant, challenging an order of Externment dated
07.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1,
Amravati City, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951, whereby the Appellant has been directed not to enter or return to
F Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for a period of one year from
the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of Amravati City and/or
Amravati Rural District.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned Externment Order are
extracted hereinbelow for convenience:
G
“Whereas as per the Order under section 10(2) of the Bombay
Police Act (Mumbai 22 of 1951) the Govt. of Maharashtra
by Order No.Maharashtra Ordinance No.9/94 dt.24 th June,
1994 has directed that, Deputy Commission of Police (Zonal)
Amravati will implement the power, work and duties conferred
H upon him under section 56 of the said Act.
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 575
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

Whereas against Rahematakhan @ Rammu Bismillakhan, A
age 48 years, R/o Chaman Chhaoni, University Road,
Amravati the proof of following nature has been submitted
before me.
1. Since 2017 due to his act and movement fear has been
created in the locality under Police Station, Nagpurigate and B
Kotwali and to the property of people residing in the nearby
surroundings and un-safety has been created in their mind.
In future, also there is every possibility of creation of un-
safety.
(a) The said person by accompanying with his companions is C
engaged in serious offence like threatening to kill by abusing
and demanding ransom to the people residing in area specified
above.
Offence registered against aforesaid person.
D
Sr. Police Station Crime No. Sections Date Settlement
No.
1 Nagpurigate 344/2017 384, 452, 294, 12/10/2017 Under Police
506(B), 34 IPC Investigation
2 Nagpurigate 352/2017 384,448,294, 504, 23/10/2017 Under Police
506(B), 34 IPC Investigation
3 Kotwali 501/2017 384 IPC 13/10/2017 Under Police E
Investigation

Prohibitory Action

Sr. No. P.S. Iste. No. & Section Date of Registration
1 Nagpurigate 53/17 under section 110(e) (g) 04/12/2017
F
Cr.P.C.

In this way he is liable to be punished as per Chapter 17 of
the I.P.C.
(b) The aforesaid person accompanying with his companions G
is engaged in serious offence like threatening to kill by
abusing and demanding ransom to the people residing in area
specified above.
2. He has committed activities of the nature as mentioned in
paragraph No.1 sub-para No.A and B, so also has committed H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A several activities of the nature mentioned in the show cause
notice….”
4. On or about 11th October, 2013, the Government of Maharashtra
introduced a scheme called “Dr. Zakir Hussain Madrasa Adhunikikaran
Yojana” hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for the upliftment of
B the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children.
5. As per the Scheme, the Madrasas registered with the office of
Charity Commissioner or Waqf Board which had completed three years
were to be given priority for allotment of funds for basic amenities,
remuneration of teachers, scholarship of students, etc.
C 6. Pursuant to a Government Resolution dated 20th March 2015,
the State of Maharashtra announced the disbursement of grants totaling
a sum of Rs.1,35,70,000/- to 33 Madrasas of Amravati District for the
Financial Year 2014-2015.
7. The Appellant claims to be a religious minded journalist and
D social worker, who has been fighting against corruption and misuse of
public funds. The Appellant used to publish the newspaper “kalam Ki
Takat” till 2009.
8. According to the Appellant, his daughter was studying in a
Madrasa in Amravati District in Maharashtra. At that time, the Appellant
E came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including
misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in Amravati
District, by the State of Maharashtra.
9. The Appellant has alleged that complaints were received by
the Government of Maharashtra, of illegalities in distribution of grants
F under the Scheme, during the Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
The appellant had also made such complaints.
10. In view of the complaints as aforesaid, all Collectors were
directed to initiate inquiry into the disbursement of grants to Madrasas
during the Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
G 11. On or about 9thAugust, 2017 the Appellant made an application
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from the
District Planning Committee, Amravati of the outcome of the inquiry
and details of distribution of grants in Amravati District in the Financial
Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 577
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

12. By a communication dated 18th September, 2017 the Appellant A
was informed that a Government Order dated 24th May, 2017 had been
passed for enquiry, but no Enquiry Report had been received by the
office of the District Planning Committee. The Appellant was furnished
with a list of grantees to whom grants had been disbursed during the
years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, with particulars of the amounts granted
B
to the respective granters.
13. The Appellant claims that he came to know that certain
government officers, including one C.R. Rathod, the then Deputy Director
of Education, Amravati, had disbursed grants under the Scheme in
contravention of the Government Resolution dated 11th October, 2013.
C
14. On or about 14th September, 2017, the Appellant filed a
complaint with the Collector, Amravati seeking appropriate action against
the concerned officers including the said C.R. Rathod, allegedly
responsible for illegal distribution of grants. The Appellant also requested
the Collector to stop the distribution of Government grants under the
scheme, in contravention of Rules, to certain educational institutions and D
Madrasas including the institutions run by Joha Education and Charitable
Welfare Trust and Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society.
15. On 13th October, 2017, the Appellant requested the Collector
as also the police to investigate misappropriation of Government grants
by Madrasas in collusion with Government officials. In retaliation, E
affected persons filed complaints against the Appellant, particulars
whereof have been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the impugned Externment
Order extracted above. The Appellant applied for and was granted bail
by the Sessions Court, on condition that the Appellant would attend to
the Police Station concerned till the chargesheet was filed. F
16. The Appellant appears to have filed applications under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court, for quashing
the criminal cases referred to above, which are pending adjudication.
17. On or about 30.01.2018, the Appellant filed a Public Interest
Litigation in the Nagpur Bench, praying for the following orders: G
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the State Minority Development Department to
take action and stop distribution of grants to the respondent
no. 11 to 29 and all concerned Madarssa’s, into the matter of
the selection of the Madarsa’s under the said scheme, which H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A are not registered with charity commissioner or Wakf Board
and regarding the same inquiry has been already done in the
year 2017 as of the Annexure F and report of it already been
prepared and submitted by the residential collector Amravati
to the respondent no.2 further be pleased to direct the
respondent no.1 to 2 to submit the details of the action taken
B
against all the concerned Madarsas, before this Hon’ble
Court in stipulated time.
(ii) issue a writ, order or directions to take action against the
respondent no. 2-10 who are responsible for the selection of
the Madarsas under the scheme.
C
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing an independent, impartial enquiry to be conducted
regarding all the Madarsas running in the state of
Maharashtra and are receiving grants under the scheme, by
any retired High Court Judge for submitting its report before
D this Court in a stipulated time.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondent no. 2 to 6 to furnish the record
of the funds distributed under the schemes to the different
Madarsas.
E
(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents 1 to initiate the departmental
and disciplinary proceeding against the Respondents no.
2-10 who are responsible for selection of the 36 Madarsas.

F (vi) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
of the case.
(vii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
18. Some time thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 3rd April
G 2018 was issued to the Appellant from the office of the Assistant Police
Commissioner, Gadge Nagar Division, Amravati informing him of the
initiation of Externment proceeding against him under Section 56(1)(a)(b)
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. According to the Appellant, he
received the show cause notice on 12th April, 2018.
H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 579
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

19. By a letter dated 16th April, 2018 the Appellant replied to the A
Show Cause Notice dated 3rd April, 2018, inter alia, contending-
“1. In the show cause notice the reference of three criminal
offences pending against me are reflecting which includes Crime
No. 344/17, 352/17 registered with Police Station Nagpuri gate
and Crime No. 501/17 registered with Police Station Kotwali. It B
appears that in the show cause notice the date of the said offences
is deliberately not shown.
2. First offence i.e. Crime No. 344/17 registered against me is on
the complaint filed by one Shamim Azahar Khan Jafar Ali Khan
dt. 12/10/2017 in which it is alleged by him that I the undersigned C
had threatened him on 20/9/2017 at about 9.30 A.M. to 10 A.M.
and demanded Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of said complaint FIR
was lodged against me for the offences punishable u/s 294, 34,
384, 452, 506(B) of IPC. I have filed application u/s 482 CrPC
before the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur challenging the
said FIR vide Criminal Application (APL) no. 921/2017. In which D
Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notices and same is
pending as on today. I submit that the FIR in question is maliciously
lodged as I have pursued the matter of misappropriation by the
various schools including the office bearers of the Education
Department while implementing the Scheme of Government vide E
G.R. dt. 11/10/2013.
3. Second Offence i.e. Crime No. 352/17 registered against me is
on the complaint filed by one Irfan Ahmed Mohd. Sheikh dt.
23/10/2017 in which it is alleged by him that I the undersigned
along with three other had threatened him and demanded F
Rs.5,00,000/-. On the basis of said complaint FIR was lodged
against me for the offences punishable u/s 448, 384, 294, 504,
506(B) and 34 of IPC. I have filed application u/s 482 CrPC
before the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur challenging the
said FIR vide Criminal Application (APL) no. 922/2017. In which
the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notices and same is G
pending as on today. I submit that the FIR in question is maliciously
lodged as I have pursued the matter of misappropriation by the
various schools including the office bearers of the Education
Department while implementing the Scheme of Government vide
G.R. dt. 11/10/2013. H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A 4. Third Offence i.e. Crime No. 501/17 registered against me is
on the complaint filed by one Chandansingh Ramsingh Rathod dt.
13/10/2017 in which it is alleged by him that I the undersigned had
demanded Rs.25,000/- from him for not lodging complaint against
him with collector. On the basis of said complaint FIR was lodged
against me for the offences punishable u/s. 384 of IPC. I have
B
filed application u/s 482 CrPC before the Hon’ble High Court
Bench at Nagpur challenging the said FIR vide Criminal Application
(APL) no. 924/2017. In which the Hon’ble High Court was pleased
to issue notices and same is pending as on today. I submit that the
FIR in question is maliciously lodged as I have pursued the matter
C of misappropriation by the various schools including the office
bearers of the Education Department while implementing the
Scheme of Government vide G.R. dt. 11/10/2013.
5. That the impugned action is nothing but a pressurized tactics on
me for not pursuing the matter of misappropriation before the
D concerned authorities as the impugned action is initiated against
me only after I have approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing
application for quashing of the three FIRs referred in the notice in
question. As such the action is with ulterior motive and malafide.
6. That all the three FIRs are output of personal allegations levelled
E against me and no allegations which satisfies a requirement of
Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. Thus the three
FIRs cannot be a ground of externing me from entire Amravati
District.”
20. On 25th April, 2018 the Appellant received another notice dated
th
F 20 April, 2018 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone 1, Amravati City, under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act
1951. Thereafter externment proceedings were initiated against the
Appellant, which culminated in the impugned Externment order.
21. The impugned Externment Order refers to three Crime Cases,
G being Crime Case Nos. 344/17, 352/17 and 501/17, which were initiated
pursuant to three First Information Reports (FIRs); (i) the first FIR dated
12.10.2017 lodged at the Nagpuri Gate Police Station, by Shamim Azahar
Khan Jafal Ali Khan, Headmaster of Priyadarshani Urdu Primary and
Pre Secondary School, run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society
at Azad Colony, Amravati, (ii) the second FIR dated 23.10.2017 also
H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 581
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

lodged at the Nagpur Gate Police Station by Irfan Ahmed Mohammad A
Sheikh, Headmaster of Al-Haram International English School, run by
Joha Educational and Charitable Trust at Jamiya Nagar, Lal Khadi Ring
Road, Amravati, and (iii) the third FIR dated 13th October, 2017 lodged
at the Kotwali Police Station in Amravati City, by C. R. Rathod , the
then Deputy Director of Education, Amravati.
B
22. The Appellant had been filing applications under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, seeking information from concerned authorities,
in relation to illegalities in disbursement of funds to various Madrasas
including Al Haram International English School run by Joha Education
and Charitable Welfare Trust, and Priyadarshini Urdu Primary and
Pre-Secondary School run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society. C
Pursuant to such applications, the Office of the Education Officer had
sought information from the concerned Headmasters vide
communications dated 23.8.2017 and 25.9.2017 respectively.
23. It is the case of the Appellant that Crime Nos. 352/2017 and
344/2017 were initiated as a counterblast, in retaliation to the steps taken D
by the Appellant to put an end to illegal misappropriation of public funds
and to initiate action against those involved in illegal practices. The
Criminal Case No.501/2017 filed by the said C.R. Rathod, Deputy Director
of Education, Amravati is also retaliatory, according to the Appellant.
24. It is not in dispute that the three FIRs were filed soon after the E
Appellant started making complaints and raising queries under the Right
to Information Act, 2005. Reference may be made to a response dated
7.9.2018 of the Office of the District Collector in response to a query of
the Appellant vide an application dated 16.8.2018. The response is
extracted below for convenience. F
“As per the terms and conditions of Government Resolution
of 11th October, 2013 on the order of District Collector on the
complaint dated 14.9.2017 of Rahemat Khan Bismilla Khan
in the year 2016-17 inquiry of total 36 Madarsas was done
on 15.11.2017 and 26.11.2017 who have taken Government G
Grant. After this inquiry with the signature of Resident Dy.
District Collector and District Collector in office note in the
proposal of 36 Madarsa there is certificate of registration
with the office of Charity Commissioner. But there is no
registration Certificate in the name of Madarsa in the office
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A of Waqf Board or Charity Commissioner. In the year 2016-17
the Directors of total 36 Madarsa have been found guilty
hence further proposal has been sent to the Govt for necessary
action. After getting directives from the Govt further action
would be taken.”
B 25. After investigation of Crime No. 344/2017 (initiated pursuant
to the FIR lodged by Shamim Azahar Khan of Priyadarshani Urdu
Primary and Pre-Secondary School), charge sheet was submitted in the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 11, Amravati.
Charges were framed and the case was registered as Reg. Crl. Case
No. 421. The appellant has been acquitted by a judgment and order
C dated 26th February, 2020 of the Judicial Magistrate.
26. The impugned Externment Order records that witnesses are
not ready to adduce evidence publicly against the Appellant for fear of
physical harm as also loss of their property. By a notice sent on 20th
April, 2018 the Appellant was called for a hearing to submit his reply.
D The Appellant submitted his reply which as per the impugned Externment
Order “does not feel to be cogent”.
27. Allegedly on the basis of statement made by undisclosed
persons whose identity, it is claimed, cannot be disclosed, to protect them
from the danger of retribution, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order
E recording the finding extracted hereinbelow :-
“… I am sure that, the said person named Rahematkhan alias
Rammu Bismillakhan age 48 years, R/o Chaman Chhaoni,
University Road, Amravati Alongwith his colleagues is engaed
in illegal acts, serious offence like threatening to kill by
F abusing and demanding tribute in the Police Commissionerate
to the people residing in the localities under Nagpurigate and
Kotwali. As he is having backing of Grundyism he alongwith
his companions he threatens the residents of aforesaid locality
and part.
G The said offences are punishable under Chapter XVII of the
I.P.C.
Whereas as per my opinion as it is felt that the safety of
property of witnesses will be endangered, the witnesses are
not ready adduce evidence publicly by coming forward
H against the said person. The Police Inspector by making utmost
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 583
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

efforts took two witnesses in confidence and after assuring A
them that, if they record their statement/evidence then their
names and identification will be kept secret. They will not
call before any Court or open Forum to adduce evidence.
On such assurance their evidence has been recorded in closed
doors. Perused the said closed door statements and got sure
B
about its factual condition. On perusing all the documents,
there is no effect of cases filed in Court against the said
person….”
28. The scope and ambit of Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1954 was considered in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar
v. Dy. Commr. Of Police, the State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) C
1 SCC 372 cited by Mr. Patil, appearing for the State, where this Court
held:
“8. Section 56 of the Act provides, to the extent material, that
whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay to the
Commissioner: (a) that the movements of acts of any person D
are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm
to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be
engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or
violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or E
XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, and when in the opinion of
such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against such person by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their
person or property, the said officer may by order in writing
direct such person to remove himself outside the area within F
the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district
or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto, within such
time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or
return to the said area from which he was directed the remove
himself. Under Section 58, an order of externment passed G
under Section 56 can in no case exceed a period of two years
from the date on which it was made. The relevant part of Section
59(1) provides that before an order under Section 56 is passed
against any person, the officer shall inform that person in
writing “of the general nature of the material allegations
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A against him” and give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding those allegations. The
proposed externee is entitled to lead evidence unless the
authority takes the view that the application for examination
of witnesses is made for the purpose of vexation or delay.
Section 59 also confers on the person concerned a right to
B
file a written statement and to appear through an advocate
or attorney.
9. These provisions show that the reasons which necessitate
or justify the passing of an externment order arise out of
extraordinary circumstances. An order of externment can be
C passed under clause (a) or (b) of Section 56, and only if, the
authority concerned is satisfied that witnesses are unwilling
to come forward to give evidence in public against the
proposed externee by reason of apprehension on their part
as regards the safety of their person or property. A full and
D complete disclosure of particulars such as is requisite in an
open prosecution will frustrate the very purpose of an
externment proceeding. If the show-cause notice were to
furnish to the proposed externee concrete data like specific
dates of incidents or the names of persons involved in those
incidents, it would be easy enough to fix the identity of those
E who out of fear of injury to their person or property are
unwilling to depose in public. There is a brand of lawless
element in society which is impossible to bring to book by
established methods of judicial trial because in such trials
there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal
F evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of
reprisals witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. That
explains why Section 59 of the Act imposes but a limited
obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee
“of the general nature of the material allegations against him”.
That obligation fixes the limits of the co-relative right of the
G proposed externee. He is entitled, before an order of
externment is passed under Section 56, to know the material
allegations against him and the general nature of those
allegations. He is not entitled to be informed of specific
particulars relating to the material allegations.
H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 585
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

10. It is true that the provisions of Section 56 make a serious A
inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be
suffered in the larger interests of society. This Court in
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay[1952 SCR 737 : AIR
1952 SC 221 : 1952 SCJ 279] had upheld the validity of
Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, which
B
corresponds to Section 56 of the Act. Following that decision,
the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 56 was repelled
in Bhagubhai v. Dulldbhabhai Bhandari v. District
Magistrate, Thana. We will only add that care must be taken
to ensure that the terms of Sections 56 and 59 are strictly
complied with and that the slender safeguards which those C
provisions offer are made available to the proposed externee.
15. As regards the last point, it is primarily for the externing
authority to decide how best the externment order can be made
effective, so as to subserve its real purpose. How long, within
the statutory limit of two years fixed by Section 58, the order D
shall operate and to what territories, within the statutory
limitations of Section 56 it should extend, are matters which
must depend for their decision on the nature of the data which
the authority is able to collect in the externment proceedings.
There are cases and cases and therefore no general
formulation can be made that the order of externment must E
always be restricted to the area to which the illegal activities
of the externee extend. A larger area may conceivably have
to be comprised within the externment order so as to isolate
the externee from his moorings.
16. An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down F
because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be
permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling
Dombe v. Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur, is an instance
in point where an externment order was set aside on the G
ground that it was far wider than was justified by the
exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein
were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment
order covered an area as extensive as districts of Sholapur,
Satara and Poona. These areas are far widely removed from
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A the locality in which the externee had committed but two
supposedly illegal acts. The exercise of the power was
therefore arbitrary and excessive, the order having been
passed without reference to the purpose of the externment.”
29. In Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003)
B 7 SCC 330, also cited by Mr. Patil, this Court held that in passing an
order of externment, the authority passing the order must be satisfied of
the expediency of passing the order. If the satisfaction recorded by the
authority is objective and is based on material on record then the Court
would not interfere with the order passed by the authority, only because
another view can possibly be taken. However, the satisfaction of the
C authority can be interfered with if the satisfaction recorded is
demonstrably perverse, based on no evidence, misleading
evidence or no reasonable person could have, on the basis of
the materials on record, been satisfied of the expediency/necessity
of passing an order of externment.
D 30. In Gazi Saduddin (supra), the externment notice referred to
three criminal proceedings registered against the appellant. It was alleged
in the notice that movements and activities of the appellant had caused
alarm in the locality and created an atmosphere of terror. It contained
details of three incidents having occurred within the period of a fortnight
E or a month prior to the date of notice, wherein the appellant had threatened
the people for seeking their cooperation in teaching a lesson to a particular
religious community. It was mentioned that the appellant had established
contacts with an organisation engaged in activities against communal
harmony and national security and had participated in a programme of
burning the effigies of leaders of that religious community, thereby causing
F communal tension in the area.
31. The judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and
Ors. v. Salem Hasan Khan reported in (1989) 2 SCC 316 pertained to
a person found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotics,
who was involved in several cases of riot and also criminal intimidation,
G of the residents of the locality because of suspicion that they were
supplying information to the police about his illegal activities. Witnesses
were, therefore, not willing to come forward and depose against him.
Rejecting the argument that the allegations in the show cause notice
were too vague in the absence of details to afford the externee reasonable
H opportunity to defend himself, this Court held that a full a complete
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 587
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

disclosure of particulars as was requisite in an open prosecution, would A
frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding. This Court
observed :-
“4….There is band of lawless elements in society which it is
impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial
trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without B
legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain,
because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling to
depose in public. While dealing with the contention that the
State Government was under a duty to give reasons in support
of its order dismissing the appeal, the point was rejected in
the following terms: (SCC p. 378, para 14) C

“Precisely for the reason for which the proposed
externee is only entitled to be informed of the general nature
of the material allegations, neither the externing authority
nor the State Government in appeal can be asked to write a
reasoned order in the nature of a judgment.” D

As observed, if the authorities were to discuss the evidence in
the case, it would be easy to fix the identity of the witnesses
who were unwilling to depose in public against the proposed
externee. A reasoned order containing a discussion would
probably spark off another round of harassment...” E

32. Significantly, even though this Court allowed the Appeal of
the State and set aside the order of the High Court quashing the
externment order, this Court made it clear that the externment order
should not be enforced against the externee any further.
F
33. From the judgments cited on behalf of the State, it is patently
clear that Sections 56 to 59 of the Act are intended to prevent lawlessness
and deal with a class of lawless elements in society who cannot be
brought to book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial
trial.
G
34. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for
maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of externment
should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a
locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace. In this
case, it is patently clear that the impugned externment order was an
outcome of the complaints lodged by the Appellant against government H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A officials, some Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas
who later lodged FIRs against the Appellant. The FIRs are clearly
vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and
stifle his voice.
35. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the notices of
B externment and the impugned externment order based on Crime Nos
344 of 2017, 352 of 2017 registered with Nagpuri Gate Police Station
and Crime No.501 of 2017 registered with the Kotwali Police Station in
Amravati City are patently arbitrary, mala fide, unsustainable in law and
liable to be set aside.
C 36. It would be pertinent to refer to communication No. KS-8/
ALP0S/K.L./KV/2018 dated 25.7.2018 from the office of District
Collector, Amravati in response to queries raised by the Appellant. It is
extracted hereinbelow for convenience:-
“In view of the above subject the Annexure-A of your
D application submitted under Right to Information Act 2005
has been received by this Office. Regarding Point No.1 and
4 as mentioned in your application you have asked for the
information. The information related to point No.1 and 3 is
available in this office; but the information related to point
No.4 is not available in record of this office. Hence available
E information is being provided to you whereas the information
that is not available is not being provided.
Sr. Information demanded by the applicant Information provided to the applicant
No.
1 Information of point No. 1, 2 and 3 would Would be given as per the record.
be given as per the record.
F 2 Point No 4: To contemporary Education In this matter in respect of the Inquiry
Officer Secondary & Present Director of in view of the complaint received after
Education Chandansingh Ramsingh inquiry of Dy. District Collector with
Rathod, contemporary District Planning the explanation of said officers the
Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension Officer inquiry report has been sent to
Sandip Bodkhe with reference to the Chamber Officer, Minority Dev
complaint dated 14/9/2017 in respect of Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for
Bogus Madarse about the letter given for further necessary action. After receipt
G submitting say in view of explanation of further order any action about the
letter dated 13/10/2017, 26/9/2017 and complaint can be taken.
3/10/2017 returned back to the Officer of
District Collector, if the concerned Office
is satisfied and trusting that letter then in
view of that lett er the true copy may be
given duly attested.

H
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH v. DEPUTY 589
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

37. It is patently clear that pursuant to a complaint dated 14.9.2017 A
an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District Collector against the
Director (previously Deputy Director) of Education, C.R. Rathod, District
Planning Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension Officer Sandip Bodhke. The
Inquiry Report along with explanation of the officers has been sent to
the Chamber Officer of the Minority Development Department,
B
Mantralaya, Mumbai for further action. C.R. Rathod lodged FIR No.501/
2017 dated 13th October 2017 against the Appellant under Section 384
of the Indian Penal Code, exactly within one month from the date of the
Appellant’s complaint against him, in respect of illegalities in relation to
disbursal of funds to Madarsas.
38. As observed above, the Appellant was acquitted in Crime C
No.344 of 2017. FIR No.352/2017 dated 23.10.2017 which led to initiation
of Crime No.352/2017 was apparently filled soon after the complainant
of the said FIR/Crime case being the Head Master, Al-Haram
International School received a communication from the Office of the
Education Officer (Primary), Zila Parishad, Amravati directing him to D
furnish information sought by the Appellant by filing an application under
the Right to Information Act, 2005.
39. From the tenor of the complaint lodged by Irfan Ahmed Mohd.
Sheikh, Headmaster of the Al Haram International English School with
the Nagpuri Gate Police Station, it is patently clear that there were disputes E
with regard to the manner of operation of the school. Accordingly, in the
FIR it is stated:-
“This School is formed after obtaining requisite permission
as per rule. Their U-Dise Number is is 27071502112. On 8 th
August 2017 the non-applicant Rehemat Khan filed an F
application for getting certain information under Right to
Information Act. On 4/10/2017 the non-applicant No 1 came
in the office of the applicant and demanded the information
that was given to him. The applicant verbally told him and
given in writing that this is a private school hence information
cannot be given under Right to Information. G
xxx xxx xxx
The applicant tried to convince the non-applicant No 1 that
in this school no any malfunction takes place, hence there is
no question arises to pay him anything. On that he got
H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.

A delirious with anger and said the applicant that TUM
BHADKHAU HO, MAI TUMHARA HISAB KARTA HOON.
Saying this he aimed the pistol towards me and tried to come
near to me. Hearing this noise the Staff Members, School Bus
Driver Shakil Ahmed, Teacher of the school Hafiz Riyaz
Huseni, Watchman of the School Abdul Sayeed all entered in
B
the office and seeing the situation they stopped the non-
applicant and attempted to control him.”
40. The deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat,
prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint a
colour of intense gravity. Mr. Patil argued that the Appellant had been
C extorting money under threat of exposing the illegal activities of certain
officials and certain Madrasas or educational institutions. Even assuming
that there was substance in the allegation, which appears to be doubtful,
an order of externment was unwarranted. There was no reason for the
complainants who lodged the FIRs to get terrorized by the alleged threats,
D allegedly meted out by the Appellant, for if those complainants had not
indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear. Even otherwise, threat
to lodge a complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of
externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, more
so, when the responses of government authorities to queries raised by
the Appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that the
E complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance. A person cannot
be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to
move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds.
41. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this
case, where on the basis of complaints lodged by the Appellants inquiry
F had been started by the concerned authorities against government officials
and educational institutions including the complainants, who lodged the
FIRs against the Appellant, the impugned externment order which
followed, cannot be sustained.
42. The Appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned
G externment order is set aside.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

H