‘Just because they belong to one religion?’: Bombay HC quashes SDPI workers’ externment as ‘totally illegal’ | Mumbai News

Earlier, the HC had granted relief to two other SDPI members, observing that FIRs for mere protests could not justify externment and asking whether citizens were being made “slaves of the government” for opposing government decisions.

Petitioners Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari argued their one-year externment orders, issued on December 3, 2025, rested on three FIRs over the Waqf Bill, cement godowns in Chembur-Govandi and the Babri Masjid issue. Advocate Ibraheem Harbat argued none attracted Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, governing externment for likely danger to a person or property.

CPP Shishir Hiray, justifying the police action, cited the petitioners’ alleged links to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), which they denied. Justice Jamdar noted the show-cause notice did not mention this allegation.

“There is nothing in the FIRs besides slogans and no mention of damage to a person or public property. Some other political parties (including Shiv Sena-UBT, NCP, Congress) and local residents were also there. Externment can’t be done for an agitation without permission and action cannot be taken selectively. Whether have you taken action against political workers of Congress or Shiv Sena (UBT)? Just because they (petitioners) are belonging to one religion, action is taken? All political parties were agitating,” Justice Madhav J Jamdar orally remarked.

“Yesterday, we saw that in this students agitation (over NEET paper leak issue), they have said that we do not want to go into religions, we don’t want this Hindu-Muslim conflict and we are a secular country,” the judge added.

Hiray responded that authorities were “not entering into religion, but if the petitioners were doing some ruckus on the strength of religion”, it was “condemnable” and “they were liable for the action”, adding, “Once PFI was banned, this new party came into existence. It was just a change of the clothes and soul remains the same.”

Asked why other parties’ workers faced no externment, Hiray said “Congress and other parties are not taking part in the anti-national activities”, and claimed the petitioners’ slogans “were creating hatred among the society, which will ultimately resulted into the peace of breach, and that may danger into the damaging of the property”.

“As far as fundamental rights are concerned, no reading between the lines. This is just a bogie the state is creating. How fundamental rights of citizens can be affected like this? Subjective satisfaction has to be on the basis of the material on record. What is not in the show-cause notice, that can’t be seen by the court,” Justice Jamdar remarked, adding of the Babri FIR, “According to them (petitioners), Babri Masjid should not have been demolished. That is their perception. How it is anti-national?Everybody has got a right…”

Asked to direct petitioners to protest only with prior permission, the judge said, “But why are you refusing prior permission? Therefore this is happening.”

Justice Jamdar observed externment is an “extraordinary measure” depriving a citizen of the fundamental right to free movement and must strictly comply with statutory requirements. Noting the “settled legal position” that offences under investigation cannot justify externment, he held the FIRs only showed opposition to government decisions, and that one “agitation was by all political parties… including NCP and Shiv Sena (UBT)”. Holding the action “totally illegal”, the HC set aside the externment orders.