Preventive externment law upheld where officer's satisfaction and witness fear justified action under the Bombay Police Act.

Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was upheld as a preventive measure compatible with Article 19, because action under it depends on the competent officer's satisfaction that a person's movements or acts are causing or are likely to cause alarm, danger or harm, and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward publicly due to safety fears. The contention that all witnesses, or witnesses from specified classes, must be openly available was rejected, and the externment orders made under the provision were upheld. A concurring view accepted the binding force of earlier authority, while noting possible concerns, if the issue were open, about the breadth and duration of externment.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was unconstitutional as offending article 19 of the Constitution, and whether the externment orders passed against the petitioners were invalid.

Analysis: Section 56 was upheld as a preventive measure analogous to the provision previously sustained in earlier authority. The requirement that the competent officer be satisfied that the person's movements or acts cause or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm, and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward in public by reason of apprehension for their safety, was held sufficient to sustain action under the section. The challenge that all witnesses, or witnesses belonging to particular classes, must be openly available was rejected. The later concurring opinion accepted the binding force of earlier authority, while noting that, if the matter were open, questions might arise as to the breadth and duration of externment.

Conclusion: Section 56 was held constitutionally valid, and the externment orders passed under it were upheld.

---