‘They treated us like criminals’: HC quashed their externment. They lost jobs, missed births and elections | Mumbai News

Under Sections 56 and 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, a person can be externed for up to two years if there is fear that they may commit offences.

The four accused, with nothing common between them apart from their association with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) – the political wing of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) – moved into a shared rented accommodation in Mumbra, Thane district, after they were externed.

Over several hearings since March, Justice Madhav J Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has questioned the basis of the police action, asking if externment – generally used against gangsters, bootleggers and habitual offenders – could be sustained when the underlying allegations relate to political dissent.

Setting aside Sayyed’s externment order in March, Justice Jamadar said it “infringes upon his fundamental rights” and “cannot be sustained”. On July 2, quashing the externment of Choudhary, the judge observed if by targeting citizens for opposing government decisions, they were being turned into “slaves of the government”. On July 28, Justice Jamdar set aside the externment orders against Khan as “totally illegal”, and asked if “selective” action was taken “as they (the accused) belonged to one religion” given that members of other political parties too had participated in the protests.

An order on Ansari’s plea is expected next month.

The Devendra Fadnavis government has defended the externment on the grounds that the four had held protests without permission and were linked to the PFI, which they deny. The “soul remained the same” of the PFI and SDPI, the government said.

Justice Jamdar, however, pointed out that the show-cause notice preceding externment orders did not mention this allegation, and said it could not be considered hence in the present pleas.

During a hearing on July 15, on pleas by Khan and Ansari, the High Court also questioned the denial of permission to the SDPI to protest. “Then what? Entire democracy is with you?” The punishment for protesting without permission, it noted, is just one month.

In their petitions, the four pointed out that the externment orders were issued just ahead of the January 2026 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections. Keeping them away amounted to an attempt to “stifle legitimate democratic dissent”, the four said.

Choudhary, 51, a transport and construction material supplier and the SDPI’s Maharashtra general secretary, says he was “deprived” of his liberty. “In a way, they treated us like criminals.”

He adds that while they diligently informed police before staging any demonstration, “permissions were deliberately denied” because they were speaking against government policies. Choudhary was accused, among other things, of raising slogans against the Centre and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Justice Jamdar said that the police action “merely for opposing certain decisions of the government of India… affects the petitioner’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and also to live with dignity”.

Justice Jamdar relied on the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, stating that Section 144 powers cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, and a 2021 Gujarat High Court ruling that “a citizen cannot be subjected to externment merely for raising grievances against the government”.

Sayyed, 35, the Anushakti Nagar Taluka president of the SDPI, says his externment meant his plans to contest the BMC polls were scuttled, even as his job as a courier delivery agent was threatened. One of the protests Sayyed was part of, for which an FIR was lodged against him, was over air pollution caused allegedly by cement godowns in the Chembur-Govandi area. The FIR mentions that he raised slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and BJP leader Kirit Somaiya.

In its order putting aside Sayyed’s externment, Justice Jamadar held that the offences, “even if taken at par, would not have the propensity to cause harm or danger”, and said he had “at best” participated in agitations.

Khan, 32, says he lost his job of safety officer with Bharat Petroleum following his externment, and had to withdraw money from his provident fund to run the household.

The externment period also coincided with the birth of his second child. “I sent my friends to the hospital. I tried to arrange money but how could I?” he says, pointing out that he didn’t have any criminal record.

Citizens enjoy the right to oppose policies they consider unjust, Khan says. “We have democracy, a Lok-Shahi. We don’t have Raj-shahi (rule of the king),” he says, adding that actions such as externment may deter future protests.

Ansari, 48, a state secretary of the SDPI, says he somehow kept his garment business running remotely to ensure his children’s education was not affected, and that his family had enough to get by. But, he says, the charges dogged the family. “My daughter is in Class 10, she faced admission issues.” He also worried “something would happen” to his mother, whose blood pressure and diabetes worsened, he says.