1984 (3) TMI 443 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
2. Fairness and reasonableness of the procedure under Sections 56 and 59 in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Adequacy of procedural safeguards and opportunity for defense.
4. Specificity and sufficiency of notice and allegations.
5. Requirement for speaking orders by the externing authority and appellate authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951:
The judgment addresses the challenge to Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which allow the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate to extern individuals whose actions are deemed dangerous or alarming. The petitioners argued that these provisions violate Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions, including Gurbachan Singh's case and Bhagubhai's case, which upheld the validity of similar provisions. The court noted that the power to extern is vested in high-ranking officers, which provides a safeguard against misuse.

2. Fairness and Reasonableness of Procedure Under Sections 56 and 59 in Light of Article 21:
The petitioners contended that the procedure under Sections 56 and 59 is not fair, just, or reasonable as required by Article 21, following the principles established in Maneka Gandhi's case. They argued that the general nature of material allegations does not provide a meaningful opportunity to defend oneself. The court acknowledged the importance of procedural fairness but emphasized that the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of these provisions. The court noted that while the procedure might not be as detailed as a regular trial, it still provides an opportunity for the affected person to present their case.

3. Adequacy of Procedural Safeguards and Opportunity for Defense:
The judgment discusses the procedural safeguards provided under Section 59, including informing the person in writing of the general nature of the allegations and allowing them to tender an explanation and examine witnesses. The petitioners argued that these safeguards are illusory as they do not allow for a meaningful defense. The court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions, which held that the general nature of allegations is sufficient for the purpose of externment proceedings and that a detailed disclosure of evidence is not necessary to protect the identity of witnesses.

4. Specificity and Sufficiency of Notice and Allegations:
The petitioners argued that the notices issued under Section 59 were vague and did not specify particular incidents or events, making it difficult to provide a specific response. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Mehbubkhan, which held that general allegations are sufficient for externment proceedings. The court reiterated that the purpose of externment is preventive, not punitive, and that the general nature of allegations is intended to protect witnesses who may be unwilling to testify publicly.

5. Requirement for Speaking Orders by the Externing Authority and Appellate Authority:
The petitioners contended that the orders of externment and the appellate orders were not speaking orders, meaning they did not provide reasons for the decisions. The court referred to previous decisions, including Pandharinath v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the externing authority and the appellate authority are not required to provide detailed reasons for their decisions. The court emphasized that the purpose of externment is to prevent harm and that detailed reasons could compromise the safety of witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The court recognized the importance of procedural fairness but noted that the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of these provisions. The court emphasized the preventive nature of externment and the need to protect witnesses. The judgment also included a caution to the authorities to exercise their powers with restraint and consider the human rights implications of externment orders. The court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, recognizing the substantial questions of law involved.