Bombay High Court on externment for protest: Detailed analysis of Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra

Introduction

The Bombay High Court, in a noteworthy decision in Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2026; 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305), has emphatically reaffirmed that peaceful political dissent cannot be penalised through externment. The judgment, delivered on 2 July 2026 by a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Madhav J Jamdar, sets aside an externment order issued by Mumbai Police against a political functionary for organising protests against policy decisions of the Union Government.

Externment orders, which force an individual to leave and stay away from a particular geographical area for a specified period, are recognised as a serious encroachment upon fundamental rights. This decision clarifies the limits of police power under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act when invoked against political activists.

Factual background and challenged orders

Parties and political context

The petitioner, Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, is associated with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), a political party registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He holds the position of State General Secretary within SDPI.

In his capacity as a party office bearer, the petitioner had organised or participated in various:

  • agitations,
  • morchas,
  • dharnas,

to oppose “certain decisions” of the Government of India, then led by a BJP-led dispensation at the Centre.

Externment proceedings and orders

Based on multiple FIRs, predominantly under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the police initiated externment proceedings and ultimately passed:

  1. An externment order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai in Externment Order No. 472/C/43; and
  2. An appellate order dated 27th March 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Externment Appeal No. 188/2025, upholding the externment.

These orders effectively directed that the petitioner be removed/excluded from the specified jurisdiction, substantially curtailing his movement and political functioning.

The assessee approached the Bombay High Court on 27th March 2026, challenging both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions of the petitioner

Political activity and nature of FIRs

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Roy, highlighted that:

  • The petitioner’s association with SDPI, a duly registered political party, and his office as Secretary were undisputed.

  • The FIRs cited in the externment order were primarily under Section 188 IPC (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), which is punishable with simple imprisonment up to one month.

  • The core allegation across these FIRs was that the petitioner, as SDPI Secretary, organised or participated in:

    • protests,
    • morchas,
    • dharnas,

    opposing specific decisions of the Government of India.

  • Another recurring allegation was that such gatherings were held without requisite permission of police authorities, leading to invocation of Section 188 IPC.

Challenge to the externment basis

The petitioner argued that:

  • The externment was purportedly passed under Section 56 1(a) and 1(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

  • There was no material to support any “subjective satisfaction” that:

    • the petitioner’s movements or acts were causing or likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property; or
    • that he was engaged or likely to be engaged in serious offences involving force or violence or offences under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of IPC.

  • The action was mala fide, taken because he belonged to an opposition party and had publicly criticised and protested “certain decisions” of the central government.

Reliance on judicial precedents

The petitioner placed reliance on: