Pending criminal cases alone cannot justufy doctor's externment: Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court
Bilaspur: Granting relief to a doctor, who was externed from Durg and six adjoining districts for a year, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that a doctor cannot be forced to leave his district and the adjoining districts merely because criminal cases are pending against him.
According to the HC bench comprising Chief Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravandhi and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal, for taking such action against a doctor, the authorities need to prove that he poses a real and proximate threat to the public.
"Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment. The distinction between "law and order" and "public order" is well settled and preventive action can be sustained only when the material discloses a real and proximate threat to public order," observed the HC bench, while setting aside an order directing a year's externment against a Durg-based doctor.
Case Background:
The doctor had approached the High Court challenging the Durg District Magistrate's order dated 08.01.2026, externing him from District Durg and adjoining districts for a period of one year. Consequently, the doctor's appeal before the Home Department was also dismissed by an order dated 07.05.2026. These orders were challenged before the High Court.
Action against the doctor was taken after the Superintendent of Police, Durg, filed a report dated 24.09.2025 against the petitioner-doctor alleging that he was a notorious troublemaker and complaints had been received against him alleging abusive behaviour towards patients at his clinic since 2010. It was also alleged that his threats of false accusations against people deterred individuals from filing complaints. It was alleged that the doctor engaged in crimes such as verbal abuse, threats of murder, assault, and intimidation, and had spread terror in the neighbourhood.
In the report, the doctor was described as a person known for his habit of mentally harassing prominent members of society, including employees and officials, by filing false complaints. The report mentioned that altogether 5 cases were in progress against the said doctor from 2010 to the year 2025 and out of these, 2 cases were registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 cases were registered under the Indian Penal Code.
One of these cases was registered against the doctor for allegedly using abusive language and making indecent remarks and hurting religious sentiments.
Based on these facts, a case was registered against him under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990 before the Court of the District Magistrate, Durg, on 24.09.2025.
The counsel for the petitioner-doctor argued that these orders were liable to be set aside as the doctor was not given a proper opportunity for hearing. It was also contended that the District Magistrate had mechanically relied on the police report and the registration of five criminal cases between the years 2010 and 2025 without appreciating that out of the said five cases, three cases have already been disposed of and only two cases registered in the year 2025 are presently pending consideration before the Courts. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner was not convicted in any of these cases.
On behalf of the doctor, the counsel argued that mere registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot be treated as proof of criminal propensity so as to justify the drastic measure of externment.
It was also contended that the authorities failed to record any finding that the petitioner's activities were causing alarm, danger or harm to the public or that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him on account of fear or intimidation. The counsel also argued that the allegations relied upon relate to individual disputes and do not disclose any disturbance of public order warranting the exercise of powers under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990.
On the other hand, it was argued by the State counsel that externment proceedings are preventive in nature and not punitive, and therefore the authorities are not required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. The counsel contended that merely because some of the criminal cases have been disposed of or because no conviction has yet been recorded would not dilute the relevance of the petitioner's antecedents and continuous involvement in activities detrimental to public order.
Observations by Court:
While considering the matter, the HC bench perused the State Security Act, 1990 under which the order of externment has been passed and which also prescribes the proceedings for recording of satisfaction on reasonable grounds to pass such an order.
Referring to the 1990 Act, the bench observed, "The record reveals that though proceedings under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 were initiated against the petitioner, the statements of witnesses were recorded prior to effective service of notice upon him and without affording him an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The notice dated 26.12.2025 was admittedly served upon the petitioner on 01.01.2026, the very date fixed for his appearance only at 01.00 PM, and shortly thereafter the impugned externment order came to be passed on 08.01.2026. The material available on record does not indicate that the petitioner was afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations, inspect the material relied upon by the authorities, cross-examine witnesses, or adduce evidence in his defence. Since an externment order entails serious civil consequences affecting the fundamental right of a citizen to reside, move freely and carry on his occupation, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards is imperative."
Further, the bench referred to the Judgements in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, where recognizing the preventive nature of externment proceedings, the Supreme Court had emphasized that statutory safeguards must be strictly observed. Similarly, the Apex Court had reiterated in the case of Deepak v. State of Maharashtra that an externment order cannot be sustained where the statutory requirements and procedural safeguards have not been duly complied with.
Referring to the Apex Court's observations, the HC bench observed, "This Court further finds that the impugned order is founded substantially upon the registration of five criminal cases against the petitioner between the years 2010 and 2025. However, it is not disputed that out of the said five cases, three cases have already stand disposed of and only two cases registered in the year 2025 are pending adjudication. Significantly, the petitioner has not been convicted or sentenced in any of the said cases till date. Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment."
The HC bench pointed out that in Prem Chand v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had held that extraordinary preventive measures cannot be justified on vague allegations or mere suspicion and that the action must be founded upon objective material having a rational nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It also referred to the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, where it was observed that preventive measures affecting personal liberty must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.
"In the present case, the allegations contained in the police report are largely general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific material establishing that witnesses were unwilling to come forward in public due to fear of the petitioner or that his activities had created such a situation as to warrant his externment from District Durg and six adjoining districts for a period of one year," observed the High Court bench.
"Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate is not supported by adequate material satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 and that the proceedings stand vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice," it held.
Therefore, the High Court bench set aside and quashed the externment order and the appellate order, noting, "Consequently, the externment order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg, and the appellate order dated 07.05.2026 affirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/11/chhattisgarh-hc-externment-order-359093.pdf
