9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the externment order under Section 56(1)(a), (b), and (bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 59 of the Act. 3. Sufficiency of evidence supporting the externment order. 4. Procedural compliance in passing the externment order. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the externment order under Section 56(1)(a), (b), and (bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951: The High Court upheld the externment order based on clause 56(1)(bb)(1) of the Act, which pertains to actions prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The court found that the allegations in the notice per se attracted Clauses (a), (b), and (bb) (1) of Section 56(1). However, it did not find any substance in the allegations pertaining to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1). The High Court sustained the order of externment based on the allegations under Clause (bb) of Section 56(1), which deals with actions prejudicial to public order, such as propagating or promoting feelings of enmity or hatred on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language. 2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 59 of the Act: The appellant contested the validity of the notice, arguing that it did not contain the allegation that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against him, which is a necessary ingredient for externment under Clause (b). The High Court agreed with this contention and found that the allegations in relation to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) were not sustainable. However, the court held that the non-sustainment of the notice pertaining to Clauses (a) and (b) did not invalidate the notice under Clause (bb) if there was evidence to support the allegations made under that clause. 3. Sufficiency of evidence supporting the externment order: The High Court, after perusal of the original documents and the statements of three witnesses recorded by the police in camera, concluded that the allegations under Clause (bb) of Section 56(1) were duly proved. The court found that the appellant had threatened the witnesses with dire consequences for their failure to participate in his demonstrations, created terror in the locality, and instigated residents on communal lines, thereby disturbing public tranquility and security. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, including the statements of the three witnesses, agreed with the High Court's findings and held that a case was made out for the externment of the appellant under Clause (1) of Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act. 4. Procedural compliance in passing the externment order: The Supreme Court noted that the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules in passing the order of externment was duly followed. The satisfaction of the authority passing the order was based on material on record, and the courts would not interfere with such satisfaction unless it was demonstratively perverse, based on no evidence, or resulted in prejudice to the appellant's rights under the Act. The court found no procedural lapses and confirmed that the satisfaction recorded by the authority was objective and based on evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) was upheld, as the evidence supported the allegations that the appellant's actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The court confirmed that the procedural requirements were met, and the satisfaction of the authority was not perverse or based on no evidence.
|
