VIJAY KUMAR RAJPOOT @ VIJJU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 4083 of 2026 — 2026 INSC 926 — Supreme Court of India — Judgment dated 31 August 2026
HEADNOTES WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS
Externment — Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 — Section 5 — Section 8 — Natural justice — Notice and hearing — Mandatory condition precedent — Ex parte externment order passed upon reopening of closed proceedings without notice or hearing — Order vitiated. [Paras 13–14, 18–24]
Externment — Section 8(5) — Ex parte proceedings — Statutory exceptions specifically confined to failure to execute security bond or failure to appear during inquiry — District Magistrate cannot dispense with notice and hearing on any other ground. [Paras 21–22]
Natural justice — Statutory hearing requirement — Where hearing is expressly mandated before an order affecting fundamental rights, compliance constitutes a condition controlling the jurisdiction of the authority — Failure to comply renders the order void ab initio. [Para 23]
Externment — Reopening of closed proceedings — Administrative authority — No inherent power of review/recall — Closure order cannot be reopened suo motu in the absence of statutory authority. [Para 25]
Externment — Fresh material/supervening events — Even where a fresh report is received after closure of proceedings, the competent authority is required to recommence the procedure prescribed by Section 8 — Previous hearing in the earlier proceedings does not dispense with a fresh hearing on the fresh material. [Para 25]
Alternative statutory remedy — Article 226 — Rule of exhaustion — Exceptions — Availability of appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order suffers from violation of natural justice or want of jurisdiction. [Paras 16, 26–27]
Externment — Section 5(b) — Conditions precedent — Mere registration of criminal cases insufficient — Provision requires reasonable grounds for believing that the person is engaged or about to be engaged in specified offences involving force or violence or offences falling within the statutory categories — Where alleged offences do not satisfy those requirements, invocation of Section 5(b) is misconceived. [Paras 29–30]
Externment — Section 5(a) — Fundamental rights — Extraordinary preventive power — Multiple criminal cases, by themselves, do not ipso facto justify externment — Competent authority must reach bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction based upon objective material having a discernible nexus with the conclusion. [Para 31]
Externment — Subjective satisfaction — Judicial review — Authority need not write a judgment like a court, but order must disclose, at least broadly, the reasons for satisfaction — Court may examine existence and consideration of relevant material, mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. [Paras 31–33]
Externment — Extraordinary measure — Article 19(1)(d) — Restriction on freedom of movement — Power must be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances; objective material and statutory safeguards are indispensable. [Paras 31, 33]
Held: The externment order was unsustainable on multiple independent grounds: (i) breach of the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 8; (ii) want of jurisdiction to reopen the closed proceedings; (iii) misconceived invocation of Section 5(b); and (iv) absence of cogent material and reasons supporting subjective satisfaction under Section 5(a). The High Court also erred in mechanically relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 9. [Paras 24–27, 29–36]
I. FACTS
1. Original externment proceedings
Paras 2–4: Proceedings were initiated in 2019 on the basis of ten criminal cases registered between 2009 and 2019. The competent authority subsequently closed the proceedings on 6 October 2025, noting that the appellant had been acquitted in the earlier cases, no fresh police report had been submitted after 2019, and externment on the basis of those cases was not justified. The appellant was merely warned to refrain from future criminal activity.
2. Fresh criminal cases
Two subsequent developments occurred:
- FIR No. 117/2023 concerning alleged unauthorised development; and
- FIR No. 483/2025 concerning alleged abusive remarks against Baba Guru Ghasidas.
[Para 5]
3. Revival of the closed proceedings
A fresh police report dated 3 November 2025 was submitted. The District Magistrate recalled the earlier closure order and proceeded to extern the appellant for one year from Raigarh and contiguous districts.
4. Crucial procedural defect
The externment order was passed ex parte, while the appellant was in judicial custody, without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. [Para 11]
II. SECTION 8 — HEARING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
5. Statutory command
Section 8(1) requires the District Magistrate, before passing an order under Sections 3 to 6, to:
- inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations; and
- give him a reasonable opportunity to explain them.
[Para 13]
6. Further procedural safeguards
Section 8 also permits:
- examination of witnesses;
- filing of written statements;
- representation through a legal practitioner; and
- procedures to secure attendance during inquiry.
[Para 13]
7. Ex parte power is narrowly confined
Section 8(5) permits ex parte proceedings only where the person:
- fails to execute the required security bond; or
- fails to appear before the District Magistrate during the inquiry.
No general power exists to dispense with notice or hearing. [Paras 21–22]
8. Supreme Court's decisive conclusion
The Court held that notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 8 are conditions precedent to exercise of the externment power. An order made contrary to those mandatory requirements is vitiated and liable to be declared void ab initio. [Para 19]
III. NATURAL JUSTICE
9. Audi alteram partem
The Court expressly characterised the defect as not merely procedural but as a breach of the audi alteram partem rule. [Para 24]
10. Nawabkhan Abbaskhan principle
Relying upon Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that where a statute requires hearing before administrative action restricting a fundamental right, the duty to hear assumes constitutional significance. Failure to comply can render the order void ab initio. [Para 23]
This is a particularly strong formulation for your jurisprudence collection:
Statutory hearing + fundamental right + administrative power = jurisdictional safeguard, not an empty procedural formality.
IV. POWER OF REVIEW — ABSENCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY
11. Closed case could not simply be recalled
The District Magistrate had expressly closed the earlier proceedings.
The Supreme Court held:
An administrative authority has no power to review its earlier order unless the statute confers such power.
[Para 25]
12. Fresh report does not create review jurisdiction
The fact that a fresh police report was received did not retrospectively confer power upon the District Magistrate to revive the closed proceeding as though exercising a power of review.
Instead, the authority was required to follow the statutory procedure afresh, including Section 8. [Para 25]
13. Previous hearing is not enough
This directly rejects the respondents' argument that the appellant had already received a hearing in the earlier proceedings.
Fresh material → fresh proceedings → fresh statutory hearing.
That is the practical effect of Para 25.
V. ARTICLE 226 — ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
14. High Court's approach was erroneous
The High Court declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction merely because Section 9 provided an appeal to the State Government. [Para 16]
15. Natural justice and jurisdiction are recognised exceptions
The Supreme Court held that this was precisely a case where the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition because the challenge disclosed:
- breach of natural justice; and
- want of jurisdiction.
[Paras 26–27]
16. Important formulation
The Court characterised the High Court's refusal as an “abject failure to exercise a jurisdiction vested in the High Court.” [Para 27]
Thus, the judgment reinforces the distinction between:
existence of alternative remedy
and
availability of a remedy capable of curing a jurisdictional/natural-justice defect.
VI. SECTION 5(b) — STATUTORY CONDITIONS NOT SATISFIED
17. Section 5(b) is not triggered by every criminal case
Section 5(b) requires reasonable grounds for believing that the person is engaged or about to be engaged in:
- an offence involving force or violence; or
- specified categories of offences identified by the provision.
It additionally contains a statutory requirement concerning unwillingness of witnesses to come forward because of apprehension regarding their safety or property. [Para 12]
18. Offences relied upon did not satisfy Section 5(b)
The Court examined the offences relied upon and found that they did not involve force or violence and did not fall within the categories contemplated by Section 5(b). The alleged offences concerning religion corresponded to Chapter XV IPC rather than the statutory categories specified in Section 5(b). [Para 30]
19. Result
The conditions precedent for exercise of Section 5(b) power were absent. Its invocation was therefore wholly misconceived. [Para 30]
VII. SECTION 5(a) — SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION
20. Wide power, but not unfettered power
Section 5(a) uses wide language concerning acts causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property. Nevertheless, the seriousness of externment requires corresponding safeguards. [Para 31]
21. Multiple criminal cases are not enough
The Court expressly held:
Mere registration of multiple criminal cases does not ipso facto justify externment. [Para 31]
22. Objective material + subjective satisfaction
Before exercising the power, the District Magistrate must have:
Objective material
↓
Bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction
↓
Discernible nexus between material and conclusion
↓
Externment, if genuinely necessary
[Para 31]
23. Reasons need not be elaborate
The authority need not write a judgment comparable to a judicial order. But the order must disclose, at least broadly, the reasons that produced the subjective satisfaction. [Para 31]
24. Judicial review remains available
The Court can examine:
- whether material existed;
- whether relevant material was considered;
- whether there was application of mind;
- mala fides;
- unreasonableness; and
- arbitrariness.
The Court does not substitute its own view merely because another view might be possible. [Para 33]
VIII. EXTERNMENT AS AN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE
25. Article 19(1)(d)
Externment directly interferes with the citizen's fundamental right to move freely throughout India. It may prevent a person from residing in his own home and may affect livelihood. [Para 33]
26. Therefore, power must be exercised sparingly
The Court reiterated that externment is an extraordinary measure and requires objective material sufficient to support the competent authority's subjective satisfaction. [Para 33]
IX. APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT ORDER
27. Failure to disclose cogent material
The externment order merely referred to resentment and public outrage among certain communities. It did not identify the material establishing such conclusions or explain why externment was necessary. [Para 32]
28. No meaningful opportunity to answer
The appellant had not been served with notice and had no opportunity to explain the fresh allegations. [Para 32]
29. Cumulative defects
The order therefore failed both procedurally and substantively:
No notice/hearing
- no jurisdiction to reopen
- Section 5(b) conditions absent
-
insufficient material/reasons under Section 5(a)
= Externment order legally unsustainable.
X. FINAL HOLDING
30. Externment order quashed
The Supreme Court quashed both:
- the externment order; and
- the High Court order refusing to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction.
[Para 36]
31. Appellant free to return
The appellant was declared free to enter the districts from which he had been externed. [Para 37]
32. No finding on pending criminal cases
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were not findings on the merits of the pending criminal cases in which the appellant was an accused. [Para 38]
RATIO DECIDENDI — COMPACT FORM
1. Where Section 8 expressly requires notice and hearing before externment, such hearing is a condition precedent to jurisdiction; an externment order passed without it is vitiated.
2. The statutory power to proceed ex parte under Section 8(5) is confined to the contingencies expressly specified in that subsection; it cannot be expanded by administrative convenience or apprehension.
3. An administrative authority cannot review or recall its own concluded order unless the statute confers such power. Receipt of fresh material does not create an implied power of review.
4. Where fresh material leads the authority to reopen externment action, the authority must comply afresh with the statutory hearing requirement.
5. The rule requiring exhaustion of an alternative statutory remedy does not ordinarily bar Article 226 where the impugned action suffers from violation of natural justice or want of jurisdiction.
6. Section 5(b) cannot be invoked merely because criminal cases have been registered; the offences and other statutory conditions must fall within the precise requirements of the provision.
7. Under Section 5(a), externment requires objective material, a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction, and a discernible nexus between the material and the necessity for externment.
8. Because externment seriously restricts Article 19(1)(d), it is an extraordinary measure and cannot rest upon ipse dixit, conjecture, or mere registration of criminal cases.
9. The authority need not write a judicial judgment, but its order must demonstrate sufficient application of mind to the material relied upon.
10. The externment order in the present case failed on each of these fundamental safeguards and was therefore quashed.
