Bombay HC Quashes Externment of Four SDPI Members, Questions Police Action

The Bombay High Court has quashed externment orders against four members of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), ruling that the police action infringed upon their fundamental rights. The orders, issued between December 2025 and early 2026, had forced the four men to leave Mumbai and reside in Mumbra, Thane district.

The externments were based largely on First Information Reports (FIRs) related to political protests in 2019 and 2025 on issues including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the National Register of Citizens, the Ayodhya Ram temple, the Varanasi Gyanvapi mosque, and azaan on loudspeakers. The police invoked Sections 56 and 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which allow externment for up to two years if there is a fear the person may commit offences.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar, who heard the petitions over several hearings since March, repeatedly questioned the basis of the police action. He noted that externment is typically used against gangsters and habitual offenders, not for political dissent. Setting aside the order against Akbar Hussain Sayyed in March, the judge said it “infringes upon his fundamental rights” and “cannot be sustained”.

On July 2, quashing the externment of Saeed Ahmed Abdul Wahid Choudhary, Justice Jamdar observed that targeting citizens for opposing government decisions could turn them into “slaves of the government”. On July 28, he set aside the order against Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan as “totally illegal”, and asked whether “selective” action was taken because the accused belonged to one religion, noting that members of other parties also participated in protests.

The state government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had defended the externments, arguing that the four held protests without permission and were linked to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI). The SDPI is the political wing of the PFI, but the accused denied any current connection. Justice Jamdar noted that the show-cause notice preceding externment did not mention this allegation, so it could not be considered in the pleas.

During a hearing on July 15, the High Court also questioned the denial of permission to the SDPI to protest. “Then what? Entire democracy is with you?” the judge asked, noting that punishment for protesting without permission is only one month imprisonment.

The four men said the externment orders, issued just before the January 2026 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections, were an attempt to “stifle legitimate democratic dissent”. Choudhary, 51, a transport and construction material supplier and SDPI’s Maharashtra general secretary, said he felt “deprived of liberty” and “treated like criminals”. He added that while they informed police before staging demonstrations, “permissions were deliberately denied” because they spoke against government policies.

The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold 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”. An order on the fourth petitioner, Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, is expected next month.