Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order Against SDPI Leader, Says Citizens Cannot Be Penalized for Protesting Government Decisions

"All citizens are being made slaves of Indian Government... They cannot stage protests, they cannot agitate—what is all this?" — Justice Madhav Jamdar (oral observation during the hearing)

The Bombay High Court has held that merely opposing decisions of the Union Government or raising slogans against it cannot be a valid ground for externing a citizen from any area.

In a significant judgment delivered on Thursday, July 2, Justice Madhav Jamdar quashed the externment order issued against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary (49), General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI).

The Court ruled that organizing protests, morchas, and dharnas against government decisions is protected under the Constitution of India and cannot, by itself, justify action under the Maharashtra Police Act.

Bombay High Court Rules Against Externment for Protesting Government Policies

The case arose after Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary challenged two orders that directed his externment for one year.

The orders challenged before the High Court were:

• December 3, 2025 – Externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6), Mumbai.

• March 27, 2026 – Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, affirming the externment.

After hearing the matter, Justice Madhav Jamdar set aside both orders and disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

What Is the Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary Case?

According to the petition, Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary had actively organized various morchas and dharnas against decisions of the Central Government.

Among the issues over which protests were organized were:

• Amendments to the Citizenship Act.

• The Gyanvapi Masjid controversy.

The externment order relied upon five FIRs registered against Chaudhary, most of which were connected to these protests and demonstrations.

While examining the record, the Court questioned whether such activities could legally justify externing a citizen from a particular area.

Bombay High Court Questions the Basis of the Externment Order

During the hearing, Justice Madhav Jamdar expressed serious concern over the reasons cited by the police for externing the petitioner.

The Court noted that the petitioner had allegedly raised slogans including:

• "BJP Government Murdabad"

• "Amit Shah Murdabad"

Questioning the legality of the action, Justice Jamdar orally remarked:

"What is this? All citizens are being made slaves of Indian Government... They cannot stage protests, they cannot agitate- what is all this? Now so many papers have been leaked. If people protest, you will slap cases... What is this? It is the right of the citizens to protest.... The petitioner has just raised slogans like 'BJP Government Murdabad', 'Amit Shah Murdabad'... Why citizens can't raise such slogans? Why externment orders for such slogans?"

The Court questioned why raising political slogans against the government should become a basis for externment.

Police Cannot Extern Citizens for Opposing Government Decisions

Justice Jamdar further observed that police authorities cannot take action against citizens merely because they oppose decisions taken by the government.

During the hearing, the judge orally observed:

"Police isn't the servants of the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister they are public servants... I am going to impose hefty costs on your officers..."

The observations underscored that police officers are expected to discharge their duties independently and according to law rather than targeting individuals for exercising their constitutional rights.

Justice Jamdar's Remarks on Maharashtra Politics

While hearing the matter, Justice Jamdar also made light-hearted remarks regarding recent political developments in Maharashtra.

After noting that the petitioner belonged to SDPI, the judge referred to political defections involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

Justice Jamdar remarked:

"Day before yesterday, one 10 year child was killed in an accident and what the State Assembly was discussing - how a Presiding Officer is elected and how he has shifted from one party to the another... What is this? Even you (Saeed) should switch sides... anyways horse trading is going on in entire Maharashtra. You (Saeed) have some FIRs... consider switching cases, there is a washing machine."

The remarks were made in a lighter vein during the proceedings.

Bombay High Court Highlights Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution

While dictating the order, Justice Madhav Jamdar made it clear that organizing protests against government decisions cannot become a ground for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Court observed:

"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 further held:

"The action taken is mala fide action."

Justice Jamdar also emphasized that the action affected the petitioner's constitutional rights.

The Court observed:

"As per the Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India not only citizens have the freedom to express their opinion but also to live with dignity. The action taken by the respondents against the petitioner for merely opposing certain decisions of the Government of India affects his fundamental rights."

According to the Court:

• Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

• Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.

The judgment reaffirmed that these constitutional protections extend to peaceful opposition against government decisions.

Bombay High Court Quashes the Externment Orders

After examining the facts of the case, the High Court concluded that the externment orders could not be sustained in law.

The Court:

• Quashed the externment order dated December 3, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6), Mumbai.

• Quashed the appellate order dated March 27, 2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

• Disposed of Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2026 in favor of the petitioner.

Timeline of the Case

December 3, 2025: Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6) passes externment order.

March 27, 2026: Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, upholds the externment order.

July 2, 2026: Bombay High Court quashes both orders and rules that merely opposing government decisions cannot be grounds for externment.

Key Takeaways From the Judgment

• Opposition to government policies alone cannot justify externment under the Maharashtra Police Act.

• Organizing morchas, dharnas, and protests is not, by itself, sufficient reason to extern a citizen.

• The Court held that the action against the petitioner was mala fide.

• The judgment emphasized the protection of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

• The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that citizens have the right to express their opinions and to live with dignity.

Case Details

Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2026

Court: Bombay High Court

Judge: Justice Madhav Jamdar