Externment orders need only show material and application of mind; courts will not demand elaborate reasons or reweigh alternatives.

Externment under the Delhi Police Act depends on the authority's satisfaction based on relevant material, and judicial review is limited to the grounds specified in the statute and recognised review standards. An externment order is not invalid merely because it lacks elaborate reasons or a detailed rejection of every alternative, so long as the record shows material supporting the decision and application of mind to the available options. Courts cannot substitute their own view simply because another course was possible. On that basis, the externment order was held valid and the High Court was not justified in quashing it.

---

---

Issues: Whether an externment order passed under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 could be interfered with on the ground that it did not contain elaborate reasons or specific discussion rejecting the other available options, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order despite existence of material supporting the authority's satisfaction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 47, 51 and 52 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 shows that externment rests on the authority's satisfaction based on relevant material and that judicial challenge is confined to the limited grounds specified in Section 52. The order need not be a judgment containing detailed reasoning, but it must disclose that some material existed to support the action. The scope of review remains confined to the decision-making process, and interference is warranted only where there is absence of material, perversity, misreading of evidence, arbitrariness, or other recognized grounds of judicial review. Where the order refers to the material and indicates the option chosen, it is permissible to infer that the authority considered the available alternatives; the Court cannot substitute its own view merely because another course was possible.

Conclusion: The externment order was valid and the High Court was not justified in quashing it.

Ratio Decidendi: In externment matters, the authority's satisfaction based on relevant material is subject only to limited judicial review, and an order is not vitiated merely because it does not contain a detailed reasoned discussion or an express rejection of every alternative if the existence of material and application of mind are otherwise shown.

---