Preventive externment and fundamental freedoms: Section 57 upheld as a reasonable restriction, and the externment order sustained.

Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was analysed as a preventive externment measure against persons previously convicted of specified offences and likely to repeat them, and it was treated as a reasonable restriction on the freedoms of movement and residence under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) because the scheme provided notice, opportunity to explain, representation, appeal, and limited judicial review. The absence of an advisory board did not by itself invalidate the provision. The externment order was also upheld because the authority relied on a prior conviction and surrounding material showing likelihood of repetition; prior acquittals or discharges did not prevent consideration of the underlying facts, and no procedural illegality or absence of material was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights to move freely and reside in any part of India under article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the externment order passed against the petitioner under section 57 was illegal because it was founded on prior acquittals, discharges, and other material considered by the authority.

Issue (i): Whether section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights to move freely and reside in any part of India under article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The provision was treated as a preventive measure aimed at persons previously convicted of specified offences and likely to repeat similar offences. The scheme of the Act, read with sections 59 to 61, supplied notice, opportunity of explanation, a right of representation, appellate scrutiny, and limited judicial review. The absence of an advisory board was held not to make the provision unconstitutional, and the restriction was considered proportionate to the public interest in preventing crime and maintaining order.

Conclusion: Section 57 was held to be constitutionally valid and not an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Issue (ii): Whether the externment order passed against the petitioner under section 57 was illegal because it was founded on prior acquittals, discharges, and other material considered by the authority.

Analysis: The authority's satisfaction under the section was based on the petitioner's previous conviction for offences within Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code and on surrounding material indicating a likelihood of repetition. Prior discharge or acquittal did not, by itself, bar consideration of the underlying facts by the externing authority. The Court declined to reassess the evidentiary material as an appellate tribunal and found no procedural illegality or want of material sufficient to invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The externment order was upheld as legally valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 57 and to the externment order failed, and the petition could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive externment provision tied to prior convictions and supported by procedural safeguards may constitute a reasonable restriction on movement and residence, and an externment order based on the authority's subjective satisfaction will not be quashed absent procedural illegality or absence of material.

---