How to Get an Externment Order Cancelled in India: A Step-by-Step Guide

The Reality of Externment: A Practical Example

proceed ex parte and resultantly he would be restrained from entering the territories of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years. How can ghosts of past, settled cases legally tear a man away from his home and livelihood today? This harsh order of externment passed against A, gives rise to the following question which author attempted to answer in this piece of writing.

It is the 9th day of July, A is having breakfast with his family at his house in Delhi. Doorbell rings, standing on the porch wasn't a neighbor or a delivery person, but a police officer holding a single, life-altering document: a formal notice initiating externment proceedings against him. He is gripped by fear and shivers because the notice enlists in tabular form the details of 16 old cases initiated on First Information Report against him. Some of the cases mentioned in it were already adjudicated in his favor. Yet, the warning at the bottom was ruthlessly clear. It stated that if he failed to appear, the authorities would

What is an Externment Order and Its Legal Consequences ?

• What is externment order and its consequences?

• What is the scope of exercising such power?

• Is there any limitation exists on the authority exercising such power?

• Is the exercise of passing of externment order is just and lawful?

• Is there any remedy exists against such order, if such order stands constitutionally valid?
  
  

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jittu Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026 has observed that delay in filing an appeal against an order of externment can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, if the statute under which it was passed expressly or by necessarily excludes the operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority should retain the discretion to condone the delay in appropriate cases.

Effect of externment order

An externment order is passed in the context of the escalation of crime. It is not a judicial adjudication of an offence committed by an individual. The consequential effect of the order is that the person against whom it is passed is restricted from staying within the particular territorial limits mentioned in the order.

When Can the Police Pass an Externment Order?

Externment order is passed in different states under different statutes, generally under State Police Acts. It is an extraordinary measure which is to be exercised with great care and caution instead to be made in a mechanical manner. The order is not only restricting the person from living in his house with his family rather also depriving him from his fundamental right that is right to livelihood guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.

In Delhi, the externment order is passed by the Commissioner of Police under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

For the reference the section is reproduced hereunder:

47. Removal of persons about to commit offences.

Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of Police-

a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or

b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860), or under Section 290 or Secs. 489-A to 489-E (both inclusive) of that Code or in the abetment of any such offence; or

c) that such person-

1. is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community; or

2. has been found habitually intimidating other persons by acts of violence or by show of force; or

3. habitually commits affray or breach of peace or riot, or habitually makes forcible collection of subscription or threatens people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others; or

4. has been habitually passing indecent remarks on women and girls, or teasing them by overtures;
   

and that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the Commissioner of Police may, by order in writing duly served on such person, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person to so conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or to remove himself outside Delhi or any part thereof, by such route and within such time as the Commissioner of Police may specify and not to enter or return to Delhi or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.

Explanation.- A person who during a period within one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this section has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.

The aforesaid section enumerates the circumstances which if exist, then the Commissioner of Police can pass the order under section 47 of the Act. In simpliciter, the circumstances are as follows:

• that the movement or the acts of any person is calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a person or property; or

• that there are reasonable grounds that he would be engage in the commission of an offence; or

• that he is so desperate and dangerous that his being at large would be hazardous to the community; or

• that he is found habitually intimidating to other persons or is habitually committing affray or breach of peace; or is habitually passing indecent remarks on women.

Limitations on Police Power and Evidentiary Requirements

The orders of Externment shall be passed in the light of the objective when the provision was enacted. While exercising such power the authority should not overlook the onerous task of maintaining law and order and peace in the society, rests on the Police.

It must be passed on cogent evidence and not on the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated. In the case of Prem Chand vs. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere apprehension of the authority, is not sufficient, there must be cogent evidence which shows that the movements and acts of the person are alarming or fraught with violence.

Generally, the order of externment cannot be operated beyond the period of two years. For instance, section 49 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 states that operation of externment order cannot exceed the period of two years from the date on which it was made.

Legal Grounds to Challenge an Externment Order

Since in essence the externment proceedings are identical in different states under difference statutes. To keep it simpliciter to understand we are taking section 47 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 into consideration for discussing the justness and legality of the externment proceedings. In Delhi, the externment order is passed on the basis of the earlier cases registered against the individual irrespective of the role or outcome of such cases where a person was or discharged. The circumstances mentioned in the provision were inferred from the registered cases. The provision of externment in the Act (as well as in other statutes of different States) is enacted with the solemn object of maintaining law and order and peace in the society.

Comment:

Violation of the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

To discuss the legality of the law on externment order, it is necessary to discuss some provisions of the Constitution, cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and principle of natural justice.

• Article 20 clause 2 of the Constitution of India contains the doctrine of double jeopardy. It provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. On the same line section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code and its analogous provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita i.e. section 337 is enacted. The provision bars the criminal court from trying the person for an offence, for which he was already been tried and has been convicted or acquitted. However, the section carves out certain exceptions to this general rule is that firstly, if the court that convicts or acquits him lacks the competency to try and secondly, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the court when such offence was committed. Thirdly, with the consent of the state government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge could be framed at the former trial commenced on same facts.

• For the purpose of discussion, section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 is referenced. The provision outlines the circumstances that can be inferred from previous cases where the person against whom it is passed has committed or been involved. It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of practice what authority take into consideration is only the total numbers of FIRs lodged and complaints registered against the person. They failed to take into consideration the following factors:
  

1. Whether the trial was concluded and he was convicted.

2. Veracity of FIR or complaint in the light of motive or nature of proceeding (Civil or Criminal)

3. Whether the offence for which he was convicted or prosecuted is of such nature that implies his criminal propensity.

4. Whether in trial or at any stage witnesses of the concerned case had deposed before the court that the person against whom order passed was threatening them or caused harm to them or their property.

Violation of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)

• “Audi Alteram Partem”, one among the principles of natural justice which means every person shall get a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The right of reasonable opportunity of being heard directly come into question whether it was sustained in the externment proceedings before the authority. The expression used in the section 47 of Delhi Police Act, 1978,

“…………that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the Commissioner of Police may, by order in writing duly served on such person, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person to so conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or to remove himself outside Delhi or any part thereof, by such route and within such time as the Commissioner of Police may specify and not to enter or return to Delhi or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.”

directly affect the right of reasonable opportunity of being heard as by curtailing the right to cross examine such witnesses on whose testimony such a harsh order is passed against the person.

• The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that brings the harmony between the societal interest and individual interest is “Let hundred guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be convicted”. In the externment proceedings as a matter of practice those cases were also be taken into consideration which are not even reached the stage of trial or pending in trial. So, it is not wrong to infer that the above principle is forgotten in these proceedings on the account of maintaining peace and law and order.

• Principle of double jeopardy enunciated under article 20 clause 2 also gets violated if those cases were considered where the person against whom proceedings initiated was convicted. As passing of externment order on the basis of decided cases is prosecuting or punishing him again for the same offence.

Reliance on Compounded or Acquitted Cases

In practise often it has been seen that the concerned authority takes into consideration those cases against the accused which was compounded under section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and its analogous provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 i.e. section 359. It is pertinent to mention that both the provision in their subsection 8 expressly provides the effect of compounding is acquittal but in the externment proceedings such cases they consider conviction and mentions the same in the notice and order. This how they override the law in the proceedings.

The Procedure and Remedies Against an Externment Order

Generally, the appeal is the remedy statutes provide against the order of externment. Particularly, in the Union territory of Delhi NCT the appeal lies to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi by virtue of section 51 of Delhi Police Act, 1973. The provision states that such appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of service of such orders. However, if the externment order is upheld in the appeal then the writ under article 226 of the Constitution is the only remedy.

Since it is quasi-judicial order the writ court’s power of judicial review is very limited as held in the case of State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, (2005) 5 SCC 181. The externment order therefore can be set aside only if there is manifest error in exercise of such power or it is manifestly arbitrary.

Conclusion

Upshot of the discussion is that externment order is per se the harsh action taken against the person by which he is deprived firstly of entering his home, secondly living with his family and lastly from his livelihood guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. Since such order directly affects the several fundamental rights as discussed above, such power is exercised with due care and caution relying on cogent evidence and not merely on bald assertions. The law on externment proceeding is required to be scrutinise by the Apex Court in the light of article 19 (1) (d), article 20 (2) and article 21 of the constitution.