The Patna High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the misuse of crime control legislation in Bihar, quashing three externment orders and levying a total cost of ₹3.9 lakhs on the state government. The court strongly criticized the manner in which these orders were passed, highlighting procedural lapses and the arbitrary nature of declaring individuals antisocial without following due legal process.
Externment orders, typically issued under preventive criminal laws, allow authorities to banish individuals from certain areas on the grounds that their presence threatens public order. However, the bench observed that in all three cases before it, the district administration failed to adhere to established legal procedures before passing such sweeping orders affecting fundamental rights.
The court issued stern cautions to district magistrates and superintendents of police across Bihar, directing them to ensure strict compliance with procedural safeguards whenever considering externment or similar preventive action. The judges emphasized that while maintaining law and order is a legitimate state function, it cannot be pursued through shortcuts that ignore constitutional protections.
Legal experts note that externment orders have frequently been used in Bihar as a tool against individuals accused of alleged criminal activities, sometimes even before chargesheets are filed. Critics have long argued that such powers are occasionally weaponized to target political opponents or individuals without sufficient evidence, raising serious concerns about civil liberties.
The three cases that came before the court involved individuals who had been declared antisocial elements and subsequently externed from their areas of residence. Upon hearing petitions challenging the validity of these orders, the high court found substantial procedural deficiencies, including inadequate reasoning in the orders and failure to provide affected persons a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The imposition of costs signals the court's intent to deter administrative apathy and discourage the reckless use of preventive detention-type measures. Legal analysts suggest this judgment could serve as a guiding precedent for future challenges against externment orders in the state, potentially curbing arbitrary executive action.
