Externment notice requirements under the Bombay Police Act were treated as sufficient despite fair-procedure objections.

Externment proceedings under the Bombay Police Act were described as requiring only notice of the general nature of the material allegations and an opportunity to explain. Earlier Supreme Court decisions had already upheld Sections 56 and 59, and the appellate scheme under Section 60, so later Article 21 arguments about fair, just and reasonable procedure were treated as insufficient to reopen their validity. The commentary states that the challenge to the externment provisions therefore failed, and the attack on the proceedings was rejected on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the validity of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and to the appellate scheme under Section 60, could be entertained on the ground that the procedure for externment was unfair, unreasonable, or violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered externment where the authority was satisfied that a person's movements or acts were causing or were likely to cause alarm, danger or harm, and Section 59 required communication of the general nature of material allegations and an opportunity to explain. Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the corresponding provisions and had accepted that the notice need disclose only the general nature of the allegations, without requiring the particulars that would be expected in a criminal trial. The Court held that, in view of those binding authorities, it was not open to reconsider the vires of the sections merely because later Article 21 jurisprudence emphasized fair, just and reasonable procedure. The contention that the appeal under Section 60 was illusory was also covered by the earlier decisions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of Sections 56 and 59 and to the efficacy of Section 60 failed, and the petitioner's attack on the externment proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed on the merits, with the Court declining to reopen the constitutional validity of the externment provisions in the face of binding Supreme Court precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot invalidate or re-examine a statutory provision on a new constitutional approach when the Supreme Court has already upheld that provision, and a notice under the externment law is sufficient if it conveys the general nature of the material allegations and affords the prescribed opportunity to explain.

---