The Bombay High Court has questioned the Mumbai Police regarding the selective externment of political activists from the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Justice Madhav Jamdar raised concerns over whether these actions are being applied based on religious identity, noting that similar protests by other political parties did not lead to equivalent police measures.
The Bombay High Court has issued strong observations regarding the legality and fairness of externment orders issued by the Mumbai Police against political workers. During a hearing for two SDPI functionaries who were ordered to stay away from Mumbai city and its suburbs for one year starting December 2025, Justice Madhav Jamdar questioned the consistency of the police's approach.
Court Focuses on Selective Enforcement
Justice Jamdar specifically asked the state authorities whether similar externment measures were applied to workers from other political organizations, such as the Congress party or the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray group), who also participated in public agitations. The court highlighted that if multiple parties joined protests—such as those against air pollution in Govandi—singling out members of only one party suggests potential bias. The judge noted that the current records do not show that the petitioners caused specific harm or danger to persons or property, which is the primary legal threshold for such restrictive orders under the Maharashtra Police Act.
Disputing the 'Anti-national' Label
The legal debate also touched upon the state's characterization of the activists' activities. When the prosecution argued that the activists were linked to the formerly banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and were involved in anti-national activities, the court rejected this framing. Justice Jamdar observed that opposing government decisions or expressing views on historical events like the Babri Masjid demolition does not automatically constitute anti-national behavior. The court characterized the state's use of such labels as a broad assumption rather than a substantiated charge.
Precedent and Legal Context
This judicial scrutiny follows a recent trend in the Bombay High Court regarding the misuse of the Maharashtra Police Act. In July 2026, the court quashed an externment order against SDPI general secretary Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary. In that ruling, the High Court reaffirmed that participating in peaceful protests or raising slogans against government policies is protected under fundamental rights and cannot, by itself, justify barring an individual from their place of residence. The court's current inquiry suggests it is closely examining whether the police are using these powers to suppress political opposition rather than maintaining law and order.