A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has shed light on the interpretation of criteria for externment proceedings under the DP Act. The case involved considerations of habitual offenses and the threshold for initiating such actions. This judgment has implications on administrative decisions and the exercise of discretionary powers. Stay informed about the latest developments in legal proceedings related to the DP Act.
Facts
- The appellant filed an appeal under Section 51 of the DP Act before the Appellate Authority.
- The appeal challenged the order restricting the appellant from leaving NCT of Delhi for one year.
- The Appellate Authority has the power to review and modify the orders passed by the Protection Officer under the DP Act.
- Petitioner was acquitted in FIR No.211/2012 and discharged in FIR No.136/2022
- Respondent No.2 reduced the externment period from one year to six months after considering the acquittal and discharge in the mentioned FIRs
- Out of the six cases, Petitioner has been acquitted in two and discharged in one, leaving only three cases pending against the Petitioner
- The fact that only three cases are currently pending against the Petitioner was not considered by the Respondents
Arguments
- Petitioner argues that externment proceedings can only be initiated against a habitual offender involved in more than three criminal cases in the preceding year.
- Petitioner contends that his actions were not hazardous to the community and witnesses were unwilling to testify against him due to fear.
- Petitioner cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Chand v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 613, to emphasize that mere police apprehension is inadequate for externment.
- Petitioner points out that the Police have misinterpreted Section 47 of the DP Act regarding the term ‘habitually’ mentioned in the provision.
- According to the Explanation in the Act, habitual commitment of an act is defined by being involved in the act on not less than three occasions in the year prior to the action under Section 47.
- Petitioner mentions that he was involved in six FIRs spread out over several years, but not three in the year leading to action under Section 47, thus not meeting the ‘habitual’ criteria.
- Petitioner argues that his presence in the concerned area is not hazardous to the community, despite some serious charges in a couple of FIRs.
- In Om Prakash (supra), the Explanation to Section 47 of the DP Act was interpreted.
- It was held that if the reasons for externment are under Section 47(a), (b) and (c)(i) of the DP Act, the Explanation will not apply.
Analysis
- The principle of ‘proportionality’ was left for future adoption in administrative law.
- The satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective criteria.
- When exercising judicial review, the sufficiency of material cannot be examined if some material is present.
- Administrative actions are subject to judicial review in cases of manifest error, arbitrariness, and unreasonable exercise of power.
- Discretion must be exercised by the authority to which it is entrusted.
- Judicial interference in administrative decisions is limited unless the decision is tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
- The doctrine of immunity from judicial review is restricted to certain cases like deployment of troupes, entering into international treaties, etc.
- The decision of the administrator must be within the law and not something a reasonable person could not arrive at, and must be bona fide.
- The exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative, will be set aside if based on facts that do not exist or are patently erroneous.
- Principles of judicial review include the categories of failure to exercise discretion and excess or abuse of discretionary power.
- The decision must not be influenced by irrelevant considerations and must act in good faith.
- The Wednesbury case laid down basic principles of judicial review for administrative or statutory directions.
- The court’s role is not to arbitrate correctness between different views but to ensure the decision-making process is lawful and rational.
- Section 47 of the DP Act allows the Commissioner of Police to take action against individuals causing alarm or harm, engaging in potential violent offenses, or posing a danger to the community.
- The section outlines various criteria such as habitual intimidation, affray, breach of peace, and indecent behavior towards women as reasons for intervention.
- In situations where witnesses are reluctant to testify due to fear of reprisal, the Commissioner of Police can issue orders for the person to leave Delhi or a specific area.
- The person must comply with the orders given by the Commissioner of Police, which may include leaving the area within a specified time frame and not returning without permission.
- These actions are aimed at preventing violence, maintaining peace, and ensuring the safety of the community.
- The satisfaction of the authority should be based on objectivity, even though primarily subjective.
- Discretion should not be improperly fettered by irrelevant considerations.
- The Competent Authority found ample grounds for externment of the Petitioner based on his criminal activities, status as a BC, and other relevant factors.
- The court must not act under the dictates of another body or disable itself from exercising discretion.
- In a proceeding under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, general allegations suffice instead of disclosing details of evidence.
- Attempting to disclose cases where witnesses were not forthcoming due to fear of the proceedee would violate necessary secrecy.
- The term ‘habitually’ in Section 47 of the DP Act applies to specific sub-clauses and not all offenses.
- The Competent Authority had sufficient material and genuine grounds for concluding externaltion was justified.
- Courts can scrutinize the factual basis on which discretionary powers are exercised.
- The externment and appellate orders were not non-speaking as they contained reasoning based on material in the file.
- The Petitioner had opportunities to defend his case and present witnesses but chose not to do so.
- Acquittal in two FIRs and discharge in one does not negate the need for proper notice and consideration of the circumstances
- The past legal outcomes of the Petitioner’s cases do not automatically absolve the Petitioner from following due process in the current case
- Each case must be examined and judged on its own merits, regardless of previous acquittals or discharges
Decision
- Pending application disposed of
- Petition dismissed for lack of merits
Case Title: NISHANT ARORA @ NONI Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI, GNCTD & ANR. (2024:DHC:4075)
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)-1432/2024
