Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Doctor's Externment, Says FIRs Not Enough Without Proof of Public Threat

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a doctor cannot be forced to leave his district and six adjoining districts merely because criminal cases are pending against him, unless the authorities can prove that he poses a genuine public threat.

Setting aside an order directing a year's externment against a Durg-based medical practitioner, the court said that without evidence, pending First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal cases are not enough to justify such a drastic restriction on a citizen's fundamental rights.

Chief Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Dushyant Khosla challenging the Durg district magistrate's January 8 order externing him from Durg and six adjoining districts for a year, as well as the state Home Department's May 7 order dismissing his appeal.

“Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment,” the high court said on June 25.

Externment, commonly known as jilabadar, is among the harshest preventive measures available to the administration, requiring a person to leave a district or even neighbouring districts for a specified period. The court noted that such an order directly affects a citizen's right to reside, move freely and carry on a profession, making strict adherence to legal safeguards essential.

Chief Justice Chandravanshi observed that the petitioner had not been given a meaningful opportunity to inspect the evidence against him.

Why doctor was externed

The proceedings stemmed from a report submitted by the superintendent of police, Durg, on September 24, 2025. The report described Dr Khosla, who runs Sai Clinic at Ahiwara, as a habitual troublemaker who allegedly abused, threatened and intimidated members of the public and government officials.

The police also claimed that he frequently filed false complaints against prominent citizens and that his conduct had created an atmosphere of fear in the locality. The report referred to five criminal cases registered against him between 2010 and 2025, including two cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and three under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

One of the cases registered in 2025 alleged that he made objectionable remarks against Jain saints, hurting religious sentiments. Based on these allegations, the district magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, and ordered his externment from Durg, Raipur, Bemetara, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod and Dhamtari for one year. His appeal before the Home Department was rejected in May this year.

Unfair, says doctor; state defends action

Dr Khosla argued that the externment proceedings were in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. He said the witnesses' statements had been recorded even before he was served with notice and that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

According to the petitioner, he was neither allowed to cross-examine witnesses nor given access to the evidence relied upon by the authorities before the externment order was passed. He also argued that the authorities had mechanically relied on the registration of criminal cases without examining whether they actually established any threat to public order.

The state government defended the externment order, contending that Dr Khosla had consistently been involved in activities affecting public peace and that externment proceedings are preventive rather than punitive in nature. It said the authorities had issued notices on multiple occasions and that the petitioner himself failed to avail of the opportunity to present his case.

The high court, however, found that the state had not produced any cogent material to show that the petitioner's activities posed a threat to public order. The court emphasised that fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed without proper justification.