Category: Blogs

Case: Tushar @ Nandi @ Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf
Date: 13 November 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:55808

In a significant judgment safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an externment order passed by the District Magistrate, Betul, after finding that the action was taken mechanically and without sufficient legal basis. The Court emphasized that externment orders, which severely restrict personal liberty and freedom of movement under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, cannot be issued casually or on stale, trivial, or irrelevant material. The Bench held that all statutory ingredients under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 must be strictly satisfied before an individual can be pushed out of his district.

The Superintendent of Police, Betul, had forwarded a recommendation on 22 March 2024 seeking the externment of the appellant under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, on the ground that as many as 12 criminal cases were registered in the past. Acting on this recommendation, the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice and eventually passed an externment order on 21 November 2024. The order compelled the appellant to remain outside Betul and four adjoining districts for one year. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the appellant’s statutory appeal, and a writ petition challenging this decision was dismissed by a Single Judge. The appellant therefore approached the Division Bench through an intra-court appeal.

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argued that the externment proceedings were initiated without application of mind. He submitted that several cases relied on by the authorities had already ended in acquittal, while many others were trivial, involving minor offences such as sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC or the Gambling Act. No recent or serious offence existed to justify such a drastic administrative measure. A striking aspect highlighted before the Court was that the Superintendent of Police’s own recommendation, in its concluding paragraph, sought externment action against an entirely different individual—one Golu s/o Prabhakar Solanki—and yet the District Magistrate proceeded to extern the present appellant. This itself, according to the appellant, showed that both the SP and the DM had acted in a mechanical manner.

It was further argued that there was no real apprehension of danger to public peace or property, which is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 5 of the Act. The fact that the recommendation was made in March 2024 but the externment order was passed only eight months later, in November 2024, demonstrated that there was no urgency or live threat. During this long interval, the appellant was not involved in any fresh criminal activity, undermining the very foundation of the action. The appellant also contended that the State had failed to produce any material showing that witnesses were unwilling to testify due to fear—another mandatory statutory requirement.

State’s Stand

The State defended the externment by submitting that the appellant had a history of twelve criminal cases, and that the authorities were justified in exercising preventive jurisdiction to ensure maintenance of law and order. The Government Advocate argued that the show-cause notice was duly issued, witness statements were recorded, and the appellant was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the case. According to the State, procedural compliance was complete, and therefore the externment deserved to be upheld.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court began by analysing Section 5 of the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, which lays down strict conditions for externment. The provision authorises the District Magistrate to remove a person from a district only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that his activities are causing or are likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property, or when he is engaged or is about to engage in offences involving force, violence or other serious crimes, combined with a situation where witnesses are unwilling to depose due to fear. The Bench emphasised that these conditions must not only be alleged but must be clearly established by proximate, specific, and credible material.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the District Magistrate had passed the order without recording any incident of recent danger to public peace or property. The authority had relied almost entirely on stale and inconsequential cases. Except for two offences registered in 2016 and 2021, no other case suggested the commission of a heinous offence. The solitary case registered in 2024 involved only minor allegations under sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and could not justify the extreme measure of externment. Further, other cases cited by the State related only to gambling offences and were not serious enough to meet statutory thresholds.

The Court further noted that the witnesses examined by the State during the inquiry did not support the allegations and did not make any statement indicating fear or unwillingness to testify. The absence of this crucial element made the externment order fundamentally defective. The Bench also took serious note of the fact that the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation had mistakenly named a different individual as the proposed externee, yet the District Magistrate proceeded against the appellant without rectifying this glaring error. This clearly indicated non-application of mind at the initial as well as final stages.

Another factor that weighed heavily with the Court was the unexplained eight-month delay between the SP’s recommendation and the DM’s order. The Court observed that such a long delay belied any claim of urgency or imminent threat, which is the cornerstone of preventive action. The long period of inactivity, during which the appellant did not indulge in any criminal conduct, demonstrated that the conditions necessary under Section 5 had not been satisfied.

The Division Bench also clarified that the Single Judge had erred in holding that Section 10 of the Act barred judicial review. The Court held that externment orders are unquestionably subject to scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they impinge upon fundamental rights. Therefore, the High Court retains the power to examine legality, propriety and reasonableness of such orders.

Reliance on Precedents

The Court relied extensively on the Division Bench judgment in Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. (2009), which held that externment orders severely restrict fundamental freedoms and require strict compliance with statutory conditions. The Court reiterated that the District Magistrate cannot mechanically reproduce the language of the statute without demonstrating actual, proximate material establishing fear among witnesses or threat to public safety. These principles were held squarely applicable to the present case.

Conclusion and Final Order

After examining the entire material, the Court concluded that the externment order lacked factual foundation and was passed without proper application of mind. The statutory conditions under Section 5 were not satisfied, and the material relied upon was either stale, trivial or unrelated. The Court held that such a drastic measure, which curtails personal liberty and freedom of movement, cannot be justified on the basis of vague allegations or mechanical administrative action.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the District Magistrate’s order dated 21 November 2024, the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order dated 18 February 2025, and the Single Judge’s judgment dated 02 April 2025. The Court declared that the appellant was free to enter Betul and the adjoining districts and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Disclaimer: The information and case summary published on this website/blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal consultation. All judgments, facts, and legal conclusions summarized herein are derived from publicly available judicial records. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, completeness, and reliability, inadvertent errors may occur, and the author/publisher assumes no responsibility for any loss, liability, or damage arising from reliance on the content. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals before taking any action based on the material provided. The views expressed in analytical sections are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of any court, institution, or authority.

Introduction:

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) embedded in the Constitution of India represent the visionary ideals and socio-economic goals that guide the government in its pursuit of creating a just and equitable society. This article delves into the significant role of DPSP and explores the challenges faced in translating these noble aspirations into tangible policies and actions, highlighting the delicate balance between idealism and pragmatic governance.

Understanding Directive Principles of State Policy:

Enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of India, the DPSP comprises a set of principles that provide a roadmap for the government to promote the welfare of the people. These principles cover a wide array of areas, including social justice, economic equality, and environmental protection. Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSP is not justiciable, meaning they are not enforceable by the courts but are considered fundamental in the governance of the country.

The Role of DPSP in Guiding State Policy:

1. Social Justice and Equality (Article 38): DPSP emphasizes securing social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. This includes equal justice and the promotion of educational and economic interests, aiming to reduce disparities.

2. Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests (Article 41): DPSP guides the state to ensure that citizens, especially children, are provided opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.

3. Living Wage and Improved Working Conditions (Article 43): DPSP directs the state to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organization, a living wage and decent working conditions for workers.

Challenges in Implementation:

1. Resource Constraints: Aspirations outlined in DPSP often require significant financial resources. Implementation becomes a challenge when the state faces budgetary constraints, limiting its capacity to fulfill all the outlined directives simultaneously.
2. Conflict with Fundamental Rights: Balancing DPSP with Fundamental Rights can be intricate. Sometimes, the directives may conflict with the justiciable Fundamental Rights, leading to a complex decision-making process for policymakers.
3. Changing Socio-Political Landscape: The evolving socio-political landscape may necessitate modifications to the DPSP to remain relevant. Striking a balance between adapting to changing needs and maintaining continuity poses a challenge.

Success Stories and Progressive Implementation:

1. Landmark Education Reforms: Initiatives like the Right to Education (RTE) Act showcase the government’s commitment to DPSP, ensuring free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14.

2. Environmental Protection Measures: Policies addressing environmental concerns and promoting sustainable development align with DPSP objectives, demonstrating a commitment to intergenerational equity.

Conclusion:

The Directive Principles of State Policy stand as a testament to the Indian Constitution’s commitment to creating a just and equitable society. While the challenges in implementation are undeniable, success stories demonstrate that pragmatic governance can bridge the gap between aspiration and action. Striking a delicate balance between idealism and the practicalities of governance remains a perpetual challenge, requiring innovative approaches and a steadfast commitment to the principles that guide India’s progress.

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution, a formidable document embodying the aspirations and principles of a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, meticulously crafts a system of checks and balances. This intricate web of constitutional mechanisms ensures that no branch of the government oversteps its boundaries, thereby maintaining equilibrium in governance. This extensive blog explores the nuances of these checks and balances, shedding light on their significance and contribution to a robust democratic framework.

The Foundation of Constitutional Checks and Balances:

1. Separation of Powers (Article 50): The Constitution delineates distinct powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, preventing an undue concentration of authority. This separation is a fundamental pillar of the checks and balances system.
2. Judicial Review (Article 13 and 32): The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, plays a pivotal role in upholding the Constitution. Articles 13 and 32 empower the judiciary to review and strike down any legislation or action that violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legislative Checks and Balances:

1. Bicameral Legislature (Article 79): The Indian Parliament, comprising the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, functions as a bicameral legislature. This ensures that legislation undergoes thorough scrutiny, promoting a balanced representation of states and union territories.
2. President’s Veto Power (Article 111):– The President, as the head of the state, possesses the power to withhold assent to bills and send them back to Parliament for reconsideration. This veto power acts as a crucial check on hasty or imprudent legislative decisions.

Executive Checks and Balances:

1. Cabinet System and Collective Responsibility: The Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, operates on the principle of collective responsibility. Decisions are made collectively, ensuring that no single executive authority dominates, and each member is accountable to the legislature.
2. Independent Statutory Bodies: Bodies like the Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) operate independently of the executive, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability in their respective domains.

Judicial Checks and Balances:

1. Judicial Independence (Article 50): The judiciary enjoys independence from the executive and legislative branches, allowing it to interpret the Constitution objectively and act as a check on potential abuses of power.
2. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court with writ jurisdiction, enabling citizens to directly approach the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This acts as a crucial check against executive or legislative overreach.

Challenges and Evolving Dynamics:

1. Delay in Judicial Proceedings: One challenge lies in the delay in judicial proceedings, impacting the effectiveness of checks and balances. Reforms to enhance the efficiency of the judiciary are crucial.
2. Political Alliances and Power Dynamics: The emergence of political alliances can sometimes affect the equilibrium of checks and balances. Vigilance is necessary to ensure that these dynamics do not compromise the constitutional framework.

Conclusion:

Constitutional checks and balances are the bedrock of India’s democratic governance. This system not only prevents the abuse of power but also fosters a culture of accountability, transparency, and fairness. As the country evolves, so too must these mechanisms, adapting to the changing needs and challenges of a dynamic society. By understanding and appreciating the intricate web of checks and balances, citizens can actively contribute to the preservation of a robust and resilient democratic framework.