Action can't be selective: Bombay HC raps cops for exiling political activists
The Bombay High Court questioned the Mumbai Police over the externment of two Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) functionaries, and asked whether they had
The Bombay High Court questioned the Mumbai Police over the externment of two Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) functionaries, and asked whether they had been selectively targeted because of their religion. The observations came after the court quashed the externment order against one petitioner, while reserving its verdict on the other's plea. For the unversed, externment is a preventive legal measure that requires a person to leave and remain outside a specified area for a fixed period. Hearing the petitions, Justice Madhav Jamdar remarked, "Action can't be taken selectively. Have you taken action against the political workers of Congress party? Against that Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray group)? Is action taken just because they belong to one religion?" Read Full Story The petitions were filed by Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, who were externed from Mumbai city and suburban districts for one year in December 2025. EXTERNMENT OVER PROTESTS The Mumbai Police relied on multiple FIRs against the petitioners, including those relating to protests over air pollution caused by cement godowns in Mumbai's Govandi, demonstrations against the demolition of the Babri Masjid and protests against the Waqf Bill.
The petitioners argued that several other political parties had also participated in the Govandi protest, but only SDPI members were externed. According to the Maharashtra Police Act, externment orders can be issued if a person's movements or activities are likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to people or property. Justice Jamdar, however, observed that the FIRs cited by the State only showed that the petitioners had participated in protests against government decisions. "All these FIRs show only that certain decisions of the government have been opposed and agitations were organised. In one case, the agitation was by all Opposition parties, including the Nationalist Congress Party and Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)," the court observed. Questioning the basis of the externment, the bench said there was nothing on record to suggest the petitioners had caused alarm, danger or harm to any person or property. "As far as externment is concerned, what is important? Alarm, danger or harm to person or property!
Nothing is there. If something is done to public property, that is a totally different aspect. Nothing has been done. Just see the mala fides... They are singled out," Justice Jamdar remarked. 'HOW IS IT ANTI-NATIONAL?' Opposing the petitions, Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued that the slogans raised by the petitioners hatred and could ultimately lead to a breach of peace and damage to property. Hiray also alleged that the petitioners were formerly members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and later joined the SDPI. "The soul remains the same," he submitted. When the court asked why similar action had not been taken against Congress and other political parties, Hiray replied that "Congress and other parties are not taking part in anti-national activities." The submission drew a sharp response from the bench. "The petitioners say Babri Masjid should not have been demolished. That is their perception. How is that anti-national? Everybody has a right to hold that perception," Justice Jamdar observed.
The BriefWire