The Bombay High Court has thrown out an externment order against a 49-year-old social activist and has questioned Mumbai Police on the basis of his involvement in protests and raising anti-government slogans.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar quashed the externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, observing that participating in protests and expressing dissent against government policies cannot, by themselves, justify action under the Maharashtra Police Act.
The court made sharp observations about democratic rights and freedom of expression throughout the hearing, as it was held, and made a decision in light of the case.
"Can't citizens raise such slogans? Why externment orders for slogans?" Justice Jamdar wondered about the police action.
The judge replied, “What is this? Are all citizens being made slaves of the Indian government? Can they not stage protests or agitate?"
According to court records, Chaudhary, who claimed to be the General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), was externed for a year after allegations that he had shouted slogans like "BJP government murdabad" and "Amit Shah murdabad" during public demonstrations.
But the court said out of the five FIRs filed against the petitioner between 2019 and 2024, most were linked to protests organized against various decisions of the Central government. These included demonstrations over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Gyanvapi mosque dispute, among others.
Justice Jamdar observed that simply organizing protests or leading demonstrations against government decisions could not be grounds for externment.
"The petitioner, acting in his capacity, has arranged morchas and dharnas against certain decisions taken by the Government of India. That cannot be a ground for a person to be externed under the Maharashtra Police Act," the court said.
Chaudhary had challenged the externment order issued on December 3, 2025, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone-6, Chembur). He argued that the order was based on a show-cause notice issued in October 2025, citing several criminal cases registered over several years.
The prosecution defended the police action, claiming the externment proceedings were made in accordance with the law. The protests had also been held in spite of the police not giving permission for the gatherings, the prosecution also said.
But after examining the records, the High Court found the externment order to be legally unsustainable. Justice Jamdar referred to the police action as “vitiated” and “mala fide,” which indicates that the order was legally invalid and was passed without sufficient justification.
It also said citizens have a constitutional right to express their views and peacefully voice dissent in a democracy so long as they do so within the frameworks of law.
The ruling is viewed as a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional protections for freedom of speech and peaceful protest, and also that preventive measures like externment cannot be used just because an individual voices opposition to the government or participates in lawful demonstrations.
