Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju
v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases, by itself, cannot justify an order of externment. Externment is an extraordinary measure and requires objective material and a bona fide, informed satisfaction that such an extreme measure is necessary.
The Court also found that the externment order was unsustainable because the required notice and opportunity of hearing had not been given, and the authority lacked power to reopen the previously closed proceedings in the manner it had done.
alias Vijju
& Others
Bench
Date of Judgment: 31 August 2026
Subject Matter
Challenge to an externment order (district banishment) passed by the District Magistrate, Raigarh under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (“the Adhiniyam”), directing the appellant to remove himself from the territorial limits of Raigarh district and contiguous districts for a period of one year.
Brief Facts
Key Legal Issues
- Whether an externment order passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam is valid.
- Whether the District Magistrate had the power to review / recall / reopen a closed externment proceeding.
- Whether the mere existence of multiple criminal cases is by itself sufficient to justify an order of externment.
- Whether the High Court was justified in relegating the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedy.
Held
Significant Observations
The object of the provision is to ensure that a person, against whom an externment order is proposed, is made aware of the material allegations against him and afforded an effective opportunity to tender his explanation thereto. It necessarily follows that an order passed in derogation of these mandatory requirements would stand vitiated and liable to be declared void ab initio.
— Supreme CourtAn order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen and, therefore, cannot be made as a matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit. … The existence of objective material and a discernible nexus between such material and the conclusion reached are indispensable safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.
— Supreme CourtCore Principles Laid Down
- Compliance with Section 8 (notice + hearing) is mandatory.
- District Magistrate has no inherent power of review.
- Multiple criminal cases alone cannot justify externment.
- High Court should not decline writ jurisdiction in cases of patent illegality.
Appearance
| For the Appellant | For the Respondents |
|---|---|
|
Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Ms. Ishita Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Adv. |
Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. |