Mumbai: In a ruling that underscores the importance of free speech and democratic dissent, the Bombay High Court has struck down a Mumbai Police order that sought to extern a political activist, observing that citizens cannot be driven out of their own city simply for protesting against the government.
Justice Madhav Jamdar, while allowing a petition filed by Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), said that raising slogans against the government or taking part in peaceful protests does not amount to a threat to public order. Such acts, the court noted, are part of the democratic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The case stemmed from a one year externment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, in December 2025. The order was later upheld by the Konkan Divisional Commissioner in March this year. Police had based their decision on five FIRs registered against Chaudhary, several of which were linked to protests over issues such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Gyanvapi mosque dispute.
During the hearing, the court questioned the rationale behind the police action. Justice Jamdar observed that in a democracy, citizens have every right to question those in power and express disagreement with government policies. Peaceful protests and criticism of the government, he said, cannot by themselves become grounds for externment.
The judge also made it clear that police authorities must exercise their powers within the limits of the law. They cannot treat participation in protests as evidence that a person poses a danger to society, especially when there is no material to show that public peace or safety has been seriously threatened.
Setting aside both the externment order and the appellate authority’s decision, the High Court held that the action violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights, including the freedoms of speech, expression and peaceful assembly. It ruled that the legal requirements for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act had not been met.
The verdict is being seen as a strong reminder that dissent is an essential part of a functioning democracy. While governments and their policies may face criticism, the court reaffirmed that such criticism cannot be used as a reason to curtail a citizen’s liberty or force them out of their home district.
Legal observers believe the judgment could serve as an important precedent in future cases involving police action against protesters, reinforcing that democratic disagreement cannot be equated with criminality without clear evidence of a genuine threat to public order.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Says Woman’s Remarriage Is Valid Even If Ex-Husband Files Delayed Divorce Appeal