Externment law upheld as a reasonable public-safety restriction with procedural safeguards and valid classification.

An externment law was upheld because it was directed at public safety and contained procedural safeguards suited to the exceptional measure. The order was treated as one of externment from Greater Bombay only, since the reference to removal outside the State was beyond the Commissioner's authority and was later regularised by the petitioner's request to stay at Kalyan and the police acceptance of that request. Section 27(1) was also held to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of movement and residence under Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e), because it required notice, an opportunity to explain, and allowed cancellation, while the absence of cross-examination did not make the procedure unreasonable. The classification was held reasonable and not discriminatory under Article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the externment order was invalid for not conforming to section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902; (ii) whether section 27(1) unreasonably restricted the freedom of movement guaranteed by article 19(1)(d) and the right to reside and settle in any part of India under article 19(1)(e), and was therefore void under article 13(1); (iii) whether section 27(1) was discriminatory and offended article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the externment order was invalid for not conforming to section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902.

Analysis: Section 27(1) contemplated different forms of externment, and where the direction was effectively to remove a person from Greater Bombay, the order had to be read in light of its real purpose. Although the order mentioned a place outside the State, that direction was beyond the Commissioner of Police's authority. The subsequent request of the petitioner to stay at Kalyan, and the police acceptance of that request, cured the irregularity and showed that the order could be understood as one of externment from Greater Bombay only.

Conclusion: The externment order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether section 27(1) unreasonably restricted the freedom of movement guaranteed by article 19(1)(d) and the right to reside and settle in any part of India under article 19(1)(e), and was therefore void under article 13(1).

Analysis: The restriction was enacted for public safety against dangerous persons whose presence could endanger peace and security. The law contained safeguards, including a limited duration, power of cancellation, and a procedure requiring notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity of explanation. The absence of a right to cross-examine the informants did not make the procedure unreasonable in the special context of the legislation.

Conclusion: Section 27(1) imposed reasonable restrictions and was not void on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether section 27(1) was discriminatory and offended article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision applied to a special class of persons against whom action could be taken on a rational basis connected with the object of the statute. The different procedure was justified by the nature of the danger addressed and by the policy of the enactment, so the classification was reasonable.

Conclusion: Section 27(1) was not discriminatory and did not offend article 14.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on all substantial grounds and the externment order and impugned statutory provision were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on movement imposed by an externment law is valid if it is supported by a reasonable classification, is directed to public safety, and is accompanied by procedural safeguards adequate to the exceptional nature of the measure.

---