Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed an externment order issued against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the Maharashtra General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), observing that merely raising slogans against the government or political leaders cannot justify removing a citizen from a particular area.
Hearing the petition, Justice Madhav Jamdar questioned the Mumbai Police’s decision to extern Chaudhary from Mumbai and adjoining districts for one year. The court specifically asked how slogans such as “BJP government murdabad” and “Amit Shah murdabad” could be treated as valid grounds for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.
The petitioner had challenged orders issued in December 2025 and March 2026, arguing that they were based largely on FIRs linked to protests and demonstrations against various Central government decisions, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar made strong observations on the constitutional right to dissent, stating that citizens are entitled to protest and express disagreement with government policies. The judge remarked that participation in protests or raising political slogans, by itself, cannot be a lawful basis for externment.
The court also criticised the police action, observing that police officers are public servants accountable to the public and not functionaries of any political executive. Justice Jamdar held that the externment order was mala fide and violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of expression and the right to live with dignity.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition and restoring the petitioner’s right to remain in Mumbai. The ruling reinforces the principle that peaceful political dissent, without evidence of threats to public order, cannot be used as a ground for administrative action such as externment.
The judgment is expected to have wider implications for future cases involving preventive police powers, reaffirming that constitutional freedoms of speech and peaceful protest cannot be curtailed solely because of criticism directed at the government or political leaders.
