The MP High Court directed the State Chief Secretary to ensure that District Magistrates act independently without political influence under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The Court quashed an externment order deemed illegal, highlighting the absence of necessary evidence and directed compensation of Rs 50,000 to the affected petitioner.
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently issued a significant directive, asking the State Chief Secretary to meet with all Collectors and instruct them not to act under political pressure while passing orders under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. This law governs state security and public order.
Justice Vivek Agarwal, while addressing a petition challenging an externment order issued by the District Magistrate (DM) of Burhanpur, emphasized the need for impartiality and adherence to the law. The Court stressed that administrative decisions should be free from political influence.
“Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. is requested to call a meeting of all the District Magistrates and give them confidence and directions to not to pass orders under political pressure without appreciating the true intent and meaning of the law as contained in the Act of 1990,”
the Court stated.
Case Details
The externment order in question was passed by the Burhanpur DM last year and was valid until January 22, 2024. The petitioner, who had been externed from Burhanpur and its neighboring districts, sought relief from the High Court, which decided the matter on January 20.
Justice Agarwal found that the externment order was riddled with inconsistencies. Offences under the Forest Act were cited without relevance, and the Court noted that such orders can only be issued against individuals who have been convicted of specific offences.
“The word used is ‘If a person has been convicted’ – but there is no material on record to show that, in regard to two offences under the Indian Penal Code, petitioner has been convicted. What is mentioned by the District Magistrate is that FIRs have been registered against him. Thus, without there being any conviction merely on the registration of FIR, petitioner could not have been subjected to invocation of Provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and therefore, order of externment is apparently illegal and is set-aside,”
the Court ruled.
Misleading the Court
The Court also highlighted how the District Magistrate misled the judiciary by failing to provide witness statements proving the petitioner posed a threat to public safety or order.
The DM claimed that witnesses had refused to provide statements, but the Court found no evidence to support this claim.
“If this would have been true, then the District Magistrate would have disclosed the names of such persons who were approached for recording their statements and they had refused. This attitude of the District Magistrate to gloss over the matter is grossly inappropriate,”
Also Read: “Let Response Be Filed”: Delhi High Court Seeks CBI’s Stand on INX Media Petitions
the Bench observed.
Relief and Penalty
The High Court not only quashed the externment order but also directed the State to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the harassment caused. Additionally, the Court allowed the State to recover the amount from the District Magistrate who had issued the illegal order.
Representation
Advocate Priyal Suryavansh appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni represented the State.
The verdict serves as a reminder that criminal laws should not be exploited to settle personal or political scores.
Case Title – Shri Antram Awase v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES