Under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 a person can be removed from a district, if the acts of the person in question are alarming and dangerous to the safety of the persons or society at large : Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Taarik @ Bablu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (WRIT PETITION No. 8689 of 2022) upheld that under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 a person can be removed from a district, if the acts of the person in question are alarming and dangerous to the safety of the persons or society at large.
Facts of the case: Respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Khandwa submitted an application under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 before the Collector, requesting the proceedings of externment as per Section 5 of the Adhiniyam against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and due to his criminal activities, there is a possibility of breach of peace, which is dangerous to the society at large. On the basis of this application, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Pursuant to which a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner, stating that he has not indulged in any recent activities and therefore, there is no reason for passing any order of externment against him. The Collector, however, passed an order of externment for a period of six months from Khandwa (East Nimar) and its adjourning districts.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order of externment directly affects the personal liberty granted under Article 21 and the fundamental freedom granted under Article 19(d) of the Constitution of India. It was stated that there were no recent cases registered against the petitioner and the order of externment has been passed on the basis of old and stale cases in which petitioner has already been acquitted.
Judgment: A perusal of provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 shows that a person can be removed from a district, if the acts of the person in question are alarming and dangerous to the safety of the persons or society at large. In forming such an opinion the antecedent of the person/accused plays a vital role. If the prior events/acts show that there is reasonable apprehension that such person is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of a person or property and may cause harm and alarm, action under Section 5 of the Act can be taken. However, these act or antecedent history should be proximated the point of time and have a rationale connection with the conclusion arrived.
In the instant case, the petitioner was engaged in various illegal and antisocial activities. More than 19 cases, spreading over from 2004 to 2021, were lodged against him under the various provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. and Disaster Management Act. The Collector after analyzing the record of petitioner held that presence of petitioner would not be congenial to public peace and order. This opinion was arrived at after examining the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, which are proximate to the time. Such a finding was not without any basis or substance, hence called for no interference from the Court.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY