The Bombay High Court has struck down a police order that barred an SDPI leader from Mumbai for protesting against the government. Justice Madhav Jamdar ruled that expressing dissent is a fundamental right and cannot be grounds for city-wide expulsion. This decision reinforces judicial protections for free speech and clarifies the limits of police action in handling public protests.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an externment order issued by the Mumbai Police against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the Maharashtra State general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India. The police had previously barred the leader from entering Mumbai and its surrounding districts for one year, citing his participation in protests where slogans against the government were raised.
Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the case, criticized the police action, noting that the use of an externment order to silence political dissent is not permissible under the law. The court emphasized that sloganeering or agitation against government policies does not justify the expulsion of a citizen from their place of residence or work. The judgment highlighted that such actions directly infringe upon the fundamental rights to free speech, expression, and dignity as protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Judicial Stance on Dissent and Police Power
In his observations, Justice Jamdar reminded the authorities that police officers function as public servants responsible to the citizens rather than as agents acting for specific government interests. The court found that the police's reasoning lacked the necessary legal grounds to restrict a citizen's movement. By quashing the order, the High Court has reinforced the principle that peaceful protest is a protected activity, even when it involves criticism of the ruling administration.
Notable Precedents and Judicial Record
Justice Jamdar, who was elevated to the Bombay High Court in 2020, has a history of rulings that address the scope of institutional authority and individual liberties. His past orders include a significant ruling in April 2024, which determined that public sector banks do not have the authority to issue Look Out Circulars against citizens. He has also previously addressed judicial conduct, including criticizing a sessions court for making stereotypical comments about transgender individuals and ordering inquiries into procedural delays. His bench has also been involved in cases concerning the protection of advocate safety following reports of violence against lawyers in Maharashtra. These consistent judicial positions underscore a broader trend of the court scrutinizing the exercise of power by state agencies and ensuring that administrative actions remain within constitutional boundaries. Future legal proceedings involving similar police powers are expected to reference this judgment as a benchmark for protecting the right to expression.