Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has quashed a one-year externment order passed ex parte by the District Magistrate, Raigarh, under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, while the appellant was in custody. It held that notice and a reasonable hearing under Section 8 are conditions precedent, that the authority could not reopen a closed externment case without statutory power, and that the High Court wrongly relegated the appellant to a statutory appeal.
An externment case begun against the appellant in 2019 on a police report listing earlier cases was closed on 6 October 2025, with a warning, because he had been acquitted and no fresh report had come in. On 30 October 2025, a new case was registered over a social media video alleged to contain derogatory remarks about a revered religious figure, and he was arrested the same day.
On a fresh police report, the District Magistrate recalled the closure order on 3 November 2025 and, the next day, passed an ex parte order externing him from Raigarh and contiguous districts for one year. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed his writ petition on 22 January 2026, telling him to file the statutory appeal under Section 9. He was later granted bail in the new case.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a District Magistrate reopen a closed externment case and pass an ex parte externment order against a person in custody, without notice and hearing under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam?
Hearing as a Condition Precedent
The Court held that Section 8(1) makes notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing conditions precedent to externment; ex parte proceedings are allowed only in the limited situations in sub-sections (4) and (5), neither of which applied. Relying on Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 02 SC CK 0031, it said an order passed without the statutory hearing is void ab initio. It added that an administrative authority cannot review its own order without statutory power, and a breach of the earlier warning did not confer one; the authority had to follow Section 8 afresh on the new report.
On merits, the Court found Section 5(b) wrongly invoked because the alleged offences were not of the kind that clause covers, and the order gave no material or reasons for satisfaction under Section 5(a); the mere number of cases does not justify externment (Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 01 SC CK 0075). Distinguishing maintainability from entertainability (Godrej Sara Lee, (2023) 02 SC CK 0002), it held this was a fit case for writ jurisdiction, and distinguished Jittu Yadav, which concerned limitation for a Section 9 appeal.
What the Court Actually Held
- The externment order of 4 November 2025 and the High Court’s order were quashed.
- The appellant is free to enter the districts from which he was externed.
- An order passed without the Section 8 hearing is void ab initio.
- The observations are not findings on the merits of pending criminal cases against the appellant.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It treats externment as an extraordinary restriction on movement that must strictly follow the statute.
- It holds that closed externment proceedings cannot simply be reopened without statutory authority.
- It clarifies that a statutory appeal does not bar a writ where the order is void.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Persons Facing Externment
- Check whether a Section 8 notice and hearing preceded the order.
- Challenge orders that give no reasons or material for the authority’s satisfaction.
For Authorities
- Issue fresh notice and hear the person even when acting on a new police report.
- Match the clause invoked to the offences actually alleged.
Key Takeaways
- Notice and hearing under Section 8 are mandatory.
- An ex parte order outside Section 8(4)–(5) is void.
- No power to review a closed externment case was shown.
- A writ lies despite the Section 9 appeal where the order is void.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court said its observations are not findings on the merits of pending cases.
It refused to entertain the writ though the order was void, which the Court called a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
No. It rejected the request for remand and decided the merits itself.
Conclusion
The ruling underlines that preventive powers which restrict liberty of movement cannot be exercised in a hurry by bypassing the hearing the statute guarantees.
Practical takeaway: An externment order passed without a Section 8 hearing can be challenged directly in writ jurisdiction; the alternative appeal is not a bar.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →