<p>The Supreme Court has said that no order for externment can be passed against an individual for a maximum two year period without recording subjective satisfaction by the competent authority or it would result in imposing unreasonable restrictions on fundamental right of free movement. </p>.<p>In a judgment, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said there cannot be any manner of doubt that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure and it must be used sparingly.</p>.<p>"The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. In practical terms, such an order prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during the period for which this order is in subsistence," the bench said.</p>.<p>"In a given case, such an order may deprive the person of his livelihood. It thus follows that recourse should be taken very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure," it added.</p>.<p>The top court quashed an order of externment passed against Deepak from district Jalna on December 15, 2020, and set aside a Bombay High Court's order rejecting his plea against it.</p>.<p>Petitioner Deepak here claimed the order of externment was a mala fide act at the instance of Narayan Kuche, a local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and his maternal uncle with the object of settling family disputes. </p>.<p>He also pointed out no reasons were assigned for externing him for a maximum period of two years under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.</p>.<p>The state counsel defended the order saying it was not necessary to pass a detailed reasoned order for it.</p>.<p>The court, while allowing the plea of the petitioner, noted the order was passed an application of mind and recording of subjective satisfaction by the competent authority.</p>.<p>"The order appears to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner," it said, adding the petitioner was not shown to be involved in any objectionable activity previously.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that no order for externment can be passed against an individual for a maximum two year period without recording subjective satisfaction by the competent authority or it would result in imposing unreasonable restrictions on fundamental right of free movement. </p>.<p>In a judgment, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said there cannot be any manner of doubt that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure and it must be used sparingly.</p>.<p>"The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. In practical terms, such an order prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during the period for which this order is in subsistence," the bench said.</p>.<p>"In a given case, such an order may deprive the person of his livelihood. It thus follows that recourse should be taken very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure," it added.</p>.<p>The top court quashed an order of externment passed against Deepak from district Jalna on December 15, 2020, and set aside a Bombay High Court's order rejecting his plea against it.</p>.<p>Petitioner Deepak here claimed the order of externment was a mala fide act at the instance of Narayan Kuche, a local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and his maternal uncle with the object of settling family disputes. </p>.<p>He also pointed out no reasons were assigned for externing him for a maximum period of two years under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.</p>.<p>The state counsel defended the order saying it was not necessary to pass a detailed reasoned order for it.</p>.<p>The court, while allowing the plea of the petitioner, noted the order was passed an application of mind and recording of subjective satisfaction by the competent authority.</p>.<p>"The order appears to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner," it said, adding the petitioner was not shown to be involved in any objectionable activity previously.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
