‘Trying To Turn Citizens Into Slaves’: Bombay High Court Quashes Political Activist’s Externment, Reaffirms Right to Protest
Justice Madhav Jamdar Says Opposition to Government Policies Cannot Be a Ground to Exile Citizens From Their Own City
The Bombay High Court has delivered a strong reaffirmation of constitutional freedoms, quashing a one-year externment order issued against political activist Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary and questioning whether administrative powers are being used to suppress democratic dissent.
During the hearing, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar made sharp oral observations while questioning the action of the Mumbai Police, asking whether authorities were “trying to turn citizens into slaves” by preventing them from protesting against government decisions. The judge stressed that citizens in a democracy have the constitutional right to express dissent and organize peaceful protests.
The case involved Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India, who was externed from parts of Mumbai for one year through an order issued on December 3, 2025. The action was later upheld by the Konkan Divisional Commissioner before being challenged before the High Court.
Police relied primarily on multiple FIRs registered against Chaudhary between 2019 and 2024 in connection with protests over issues including the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), NRC-related demonstrations and the Gyanvapi mosque dispute. Most of the allegations related to organizing protests despite permission being denied and offences under Section 188 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
Justice Jamdar observed that merely organizing morchas, dharnas or raising slogans against the government cannot justify an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act. The court held that such action directly affects the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, including freedom of speech, peaceful expression and the right to live with dignity.
The judge also reminded law enforcement authorities that police officers are public servants accountable to the Constitution and the public, not to political leaders. During the proceedings, the court questioned why slogans critical of the government should invite such drastic administrative action and cautioned against misuse of preventive policing powers.
In its written order, the High Court described the externment proceedings as legally unsustainable and held that there was no material showing the activist’s conduct posed any danger to public safety or property. The court found the action to be mala fide and set aside both the original externment order and the appellate decision affirming it.
The judgment is being viewed as a significant reaffirmation of civil liberties and the constitutional protection of peaceful political dissent. Legal observers note that the ruling reinforces the principle that extraordinary preventive measures such as externment cannot be used merely because an individual opposes government policies or participates in democratic protests.
The decision is expected to influence future judicial scrutiny of preventive actions taken under the Maharashtra Police Act and may serve as an important precedent in cases involving freedom of expression, political protests and the limits of executive authority.
