"Classical case of misuse of power:" Karnataka High Court quashes externment order against three-time convict

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an externment order passed against a person for committing the same crime thrice between 2015 and 2022. [Mahantayya v. State of Karnataka].Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,"If the order is read on the bedrock of the offences and the statute, it would become a classic case of misuse of power for curtailment of fundamental right of a person."The Court noted that when a person is externed, their fundamental rights are infringed upon. It emphasized that such power to curtail these rights must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. This is because Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement, the Court added..The Court was hearing a plea by a man embroiled in three crimes, all under Section 78(3) (gambling in public) of the Karnataka Police Act. The cases, initiated in 2015, 2021 and 2022, were all closed after the imposition of a fine. However, a report against the petitioner recommending his externment from Bailhongal to any other place was generated and he was sent a show cause notice.The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and put up his defence. However, the order of externment came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on July 28, 2023. The order externed the petitioner from Bailhongal sub-division to Bagalkot District for a period of three months. This order was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner..He argued that his fundamental right was compromised by citing offences that were non-cognizable and closed after the imposition of fines. As such, he contended that the order of externment was a gross misuse of power..On the other hand, the State defended the action by contending that the petitioner had become dangerous to society. The due procedure was followed before the externment order was passed, the State added..The Court noted that under Section 56(g) of the Karnataka Police Act, an order for externment can be passed if one gets involved in offences under Sections 78, 79 and 80, but it has to be thrice within three years. This was not the situation at hand, the Court found. Without any foundation, the order projected the petitioner as a bane to society, the Court found. Therefore, the judge held that the order would not stand the test of reasonableness as required under Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the externment order as unsustainable..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shreeharsh A Neelopant.The State was represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) VS Kalasurmath..[Read Order]