The ruling was delivered by Justice Madhav Jamdar’s bench, which made strong observations on the scope and limits of police authority in democratic governance. The court noted that police officers are accountable to the public and cannot function as employees of a political minister.
During the hearing, the court questioned how slogans such as “BJP government down” and “Amit Shah down” could form the basis for an externment order. It emphasized that participation in protest activities alone cannot justify such punitive administrative action.
Chaudhary had challenged two separate externment orders issued by Mumbai Police. He argued that the timing of the restrictions was significant, as they were imposed during a crucial period of municipal elections in Mumbai, preventing him from campaigning and carrying out organisational responsibilities for his political party.
His counsel, Advocate Payoshi Roy, submitted before the court that allegations claiming Chaudhary had created an atmosphere of fear were false and were contradicted by local residents and shopkeepers from the area.
The bench further observed that issuing externment orders solely on the basis of participation in demonstrations violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court ultimately set aside the police orders in their entirety.
The judgment reinforces judicial scrutiny over preventive policing measures and underscores that administrative powers cannot be exercised in a manner that curtails legitimate democratic expression or political participation.
About The Author
.png)
.jpg)
Comment List