Recently, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian held that a person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country on flimsy grounds. The bench made these observations while quashing an externment order passed against a journalist. The top court further observed that the drastic passing of externment order could be only made in exceptional cases when there is a threat to law and cause public distress.

Background

The Deputy Commissioner of Police(Zone-1) of Amravati City passed an externment order against journalist Rahmat Khan under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing him to not enter Amravati City or the Rural District for a period of one year.  

Rahmat Khan argued that he was informed about the irregularities in running Madrasas, such as misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in the district. Hence, he filed a complaint before the government. He also requested the collector and the police in 2017 to investigate the matter. He further filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court regarding the same issue. Thereafter, on April 3, 2018, a Show Cause Notice was issued to Khan from the Assistant Police Commissioner, informing him of the initiation of the Externment proceeding. Moreover, an FIR was lodged against the appellant by the government officials and people connected. 

HELD

The Court said that it is clear that the FIR and the externment order was the outcome of the complaints registered by the Appellant. And the FIR clearly indicates that it was lodged against the appellant to stifle his voice and teach him a lesson. 

The complainants argued that the appellant extorted money in the name of disclosing the illegal activities. Even assuming that the said allegations are true still, an order externment was unwarranted. Nobody can deny a person his fundamental right to move freely throughout the country on inadequate grounds.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal