Externment

What is “Externment”?

Externment refers to a preventive administrative action through which an individual is ordered to stay out of a specific geographical area—often a district or city—for a defined period, based on a perceived threat they pose to public order or safety. It is not a punishment for a past crime, but a pre-emptive measure employed by authorities—typically the police—under statutory powers to prevent potential harm or disturbance. The term “Externment” is derived from the Latin root externus, meaning “outward,” and is contrasted with the term intern, which refers to confinement within a geographic boundary. This etymology reinforces its legal function—directing an individual outside a defined perimeter rather than detaining them inside it.

In everyday usage, the term is commonly associated with individuals involved in habitual or organized criminal activities, anti-social behavior, or communal unrest. It is often invoked in contexts where law enforcement seeks to restrict the physical movement of a person to neutralize the risk they might pose to peace and tranquility in an area.

The process usually involves issuing a show-cause notice, followed by a hearing, and then a formal Externment order if the authority is satisfied that the presence of the individual in the area is prejudicial to public order. Though administrative in nature, Externment carries serious implications for civil liberties—especially the right to movement and livelihood—and is, therefore, subject to judicial scrutiny.

The term is significant in the broader framework of preventive policing and public order management, and is distinct from punitive criminal sanctions, as it does not require a conviction or even prosecution. To put it in sophisticated terms, Externment is used as a preventive measure to restrain the criminal activities of a person. It typically prevents people from entering a particular place for a certain period due to suspicion of affecting the criminal activities as exhibited by the prior conduct.

The official definition of Externment

‘Externment’ as Defined in Legislation(s)

Externment is primarily defined and operationalized in Indian law through state-specific police or public order statutes, with no overarching central legislation uniformly codifying the term.

Bombay Police Act, 1951

The foundational statutory definition is found in the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which has served as a legislative model for several other states. Under Section 56 of this Act, the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate is empowered to direct any person to remove themselves outside the limits of a specified area, for a period not exceeding two years, if the officer is satisfied that the movements or acts of such a person are causing or are likely to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property, or if there is reason to believe that the person is habitually engaged in criminal activity or is likely to disturb public order. This provision allows for the issuance of Externment orders against persons suspected of involvement in offences under Chapters XII, XVI, or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with crimes such as theft, assault, extortion, and criminal intimidation.

Delhi Police Act, 1978

The Delhi Police Act, 1978 incorporates an almost identical framework under Section 47, authorizing the Commissioner of Police to extern persons from Delhi if their presence is found to be prejudicial to public peace. This law retains the procedural safeguards and appeal mechanisms present in the Bombay model, such as notice, hearing, and review by the government.

Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990

Other states have adapted similar provisions in their local laws. For example, Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, authorizes the District Magistrate to extern a person if they are satisfied that such a person is acting in a manner prejudicial to public security or is a habitual criminal.

Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970

Likewise, the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, under Section 3, enables Externment of individuals declared to be ‘goondas’ whose actions pose a potential threat to public peace or property. States like Gujarat and Maharashtra continue to rely directly on the Bombay Police Act, with near-verbatim adoption in their respective police laws.

Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980

Andhra Pradesh, under the Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980, also empowers the government to issue externment orders against habitual offenders and persons involved in anti-social conduct.

Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982

Additionally, the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982, and rules framed under various state Police Acts provide similar externment mechanisms, treating externment as a tool for preventive policing against persons considered to be threats to law and order. Though these statutes vary slightly in terminology and procedure, they share a common framework—focusing on preemptive exclusion based on administrative satisfaction rather than judicial conviction.

Thus, in legislative terms, Externment is a statutorily sanctioned preventive measure, designed to preserve public order by temporarily displacing persons who are seen as disruptive. The concept, though not uniformly defined across all Indian laws, is consistently associated with proactive, locality-based removal orders, exercised by executive magistracy and subject to limited procedural review.

The Atrocities Act

The most recent reference to Externment is in the Atrocities Act, which majorly aims to prevent atrocities against SCs and STs and provide special protection to these vulnerable communities. Externment provisions in this regard are used as a preventive measure to keep habitual offenders or those posing a threat to peace, particularly against SC and ST individuals, from entering certain areas.

Legal Provision(s) Relating to ‘Externment’

While Externment is specifically operationalized under police and public order laws such as the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and its derivatives, several other legal provisions provide crucial conceptual clarity regarding the nature and limits of this preventive administrative action.

Constitution of India

Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India

Chief among these is Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, as stated in Article 19(5). Externment orders—by excluding an individual from a particular geographical area—must necessarily comply with this constitutional safeguard. Therefore, while the statutory law may permit externment, any such order must withstand the test of reasonableness under Article 19.

Article 21 of the Constitution

Additionally, Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by courts to include procedural fairness. Thus, externment—though administrative—must comply with the principles of natural justice, including notice, hearing, and reasoned order. The requirement for procedural safeguards is reinforced through Sections 58 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, which mandate an inquiry and provide for appeal to the State Government.

Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973,offer additional contextual relevance. Section 110 CrPC empowers an Executive Magistrate to demand security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. Though distinct from externment, the preventive logic and identification of habitual threat actors mirror the rationale used in externment orders.

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

Similarly, CrPC’s Section 144 authorises temporary restrictions on movement in urgent cases of public danger, further exemplifying how Indian law recognises preventive control of individual liberty in certain contexts.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The (IPC) also supports externment frameworks by defining the categories of offences commonly used to justify such orders. Notably, Chapters XII (offences against property), XVI (offences affecting the human body), and XVII (offences against public tranquillity) are cited in externment statutes like Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act as relevant antecedents that can lead to externment. Therefore, the understanding of what constitutes a "threat" or "habitual activity" draws conceptually from these penal definitions

Together, these constitutional rights, procedural safeguards under CrPC, and definitional references in the IPC form a comprehensive legal ecosystem that contextualizes externment. While they do not define the term directly, they anchor its legality, enforceability, and limitations within the broader Indian legal framework.

‘Externment’ as Defined in International Instrument(s)

The term externment, as operationalised in Indian law, does not appear explicitly in international legal treaties. However, its substantive elements overlap with internationally discussed practices such as internal banishment, administrative expulsion, or forced displacement by state authorities for reasons of public order or national security. These are governed under various branches of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and Refugee Law, and are generally viewed with scepticism when they lack due process or infringe fundamental freedoms.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The UDHR under Article 13 provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State” and “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. While this article primarily protects against exile or deportation, it offers a clear international benchmark limiting any arbitrary restrictions on internal movement.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

ICCPR, which India has ratified, codifies this in Article 12, stating that “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.” While the State may impose restrictions, they must be “provided by law, necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others” and must be consistent with due process principles.

UN Human Rights Committee

The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 27 on Article 12 of the ICCPR, has warned against the misuse of internal expulsion or administrative restrictions that prevent individuals from residing in or accessing certain areas of their country without lawful justification and review.

UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation

Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation note that any form of administrative punishment or restriction that leads to displacement or banishment without due legal process violates core procedural rights, particularly if it lacks a fair hearing, judicial oversight, or the right to appeal.

UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion & Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism

Although not directly addressing externment as used in Indian domestic law, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism have both critiqued preventive administrative measures that restrict liberty without charge or trial, placing externment within broader concerns about arbitrary restrictions and preemptive policing.

While the term externment does not appear in binding international law instruments, its functional equivalence to internal exile, administrative expulsion, or area restrictions has been widely commented upon by UN treaty bodies and human rights experts. These instruments emphasize that such measures must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory, and must include access to judicial review.

‘Externment’ as Defined in Official Document(s)

Although no central government document formally defines externment, several official sources refer to it as a preventive administrative tool used by police and district authorities under relevant legal provisions.

Parliament Questions

For instance, in multiple Parliament Questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and state home departments have described externment as a mechanism to remove individuals involved in anti-social, habitual, or criminal activities from specific local jurisdictions. These replies often refer to externment powers exercised under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and its state-level equivalents, especially in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi.

Maharashtra Police Manual (Volume III)

Further, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) published by state police departments reference externment as a routine public order strategy. For example, the Maharashtra Police Manual (Volume III) underlines externment as part of “preventive actions” taken under the Bombay Police Act and includes procedural steps such as issuing a show-cause notice, conducting a local inquiry, and recording reasons for satisfaction before passing an externment order. While not defining the term lexically, the SOP characterizes externment as a non-punitive yet liberty-restricting action, distinct from arrest or criminal trial.

Delhi Police Annual Reports

The Delhi Police Annual Reports also mention externment under crime prevention strategies. For instance, the Delhi Police Report 2020–21 notes that “a total of 496 externment proposals were processed under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act to ensure proactive containment of organized criminal networks”. This establishes externment as a quantifiable administrative measure used in the field of preventive policing.

In sum, while no government gazette or bill contains a dedicated definition, the term externment is clearly understood across official documents as a preventive exclusion mechanism, exercised under the legal authority of state-level Acts and supervised through internal police protocols and oversight mechanisms.

‘Externment’ as defined in official government report(s)

the term externment is referenced but not formally defined in most reports. Nonetheless, several reports discuss or contextualize externment as part of preventive policing, civil liberties, or criminal justice reform.

Law Commission of India – 113th Report (1985): Injuries in Police Custody

This report highlights the preventive measures used by police, including externment, and raises concerns about abuse of power in the name of maintaining public order. While not defining externment directly, it references it as a tool often exercised without adequate safeguards, especially in the context of habitual offender surveillance. The report recommends tighter procedural control over such powers.

Justice Malimath Committee Report (2003): Reforms in Criminal Justice System

The Malimath Committee report notes the role of externment in the preventive architecture of law enforcement. It identifies lack of transparency and accountability in externment orders as an area of concern and recommends that all such administrative orders be made appealable and recorded in a public database.

Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) – 5th Report: Public Order

This report mentions externment while discussing non-judicial methods of maintaining order in urban and rural districts. It classifies externment alongside curfews, preventive detention, and surveillance, and calls for better data reporting, public grievance mechanisms, and time-bound external reviews.

MHA Annual Report (Various Years)

The Ministry of Home Affairs, in annual crime and policing statistics, includes externment data as part of crime prevention. These reports do not define externment but track number of externment orders passed per state, particularly in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi.

‘Externment’ as Defined in Case Law(s)

Indian case law has played a crucial role in defining and regulating the scope of externment, treating it as a preventive, administrative action that must conform to the principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards. Courts have recognised that while externment serves public order objectives, its exercise must not result in arbitrary curtailment of personal liberty.

Prem Chand v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 613

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that externment orders must not be arbitrary and must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(1)(d). The Court strongly criticised vague or mechanical use of such orders and insisted on strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including notice, opportunity to be heard, and specific reasoning.

State of Maharashtra v Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613

Here, the Court upheld the validity of externment laws under the Bombay Police Act but clarified that subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective material. The judgment stressed that courts can review externment orders on grounds of mala fide, non-application of mind, and breach of natural justice.

Deepak v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1304

The Bombay High Court struck down an externment order for failure to establish a live link between the alleged acts and the proposed externment period. It reaffirmed the requirement for proportionality, evidence-based reasoning, and territorial nexus between conduct and the area of exclusion.

Sarjubhaiya Mathurbhaiya Kahar v Deputy Commissioner of Police (1984)

The Gujarat High Court emphasised that while externment is legally permitted for up to two years, the decision must be grounded in material facts and not left to unfettered executive discretion. The dissenting opinion cautioned that from the perspective of the affected party, such orders must be narrowly tailored and procedurally just.

Ambadas and Ors v State of Karnataka and Anr (1987)

The Karnataka High Court quashed externment orders for failure to comply with procedural requirements, particularly the absence of a proper hearing and vague reasoning. It reiterated the need for application of mind and documented justification before ordering externment.

Avinash @ Janu v Lt. Governor of Delhi (2017)

The Delhi High Court upheld the externment process while stressing that each case must be based on concrete allegations, not assumptions. The Court clarified that pending criminal trials do not automatically justify externment, and authorities must demonstrate potential danger to public order.

M Harish Reddy @ Harish v Assistant Commissioner (2019)

The externment order issued under the Karnataka Police Act was examined for legality. The Karnataka High Court upheld the order but noted that externment powers must be exercised only after full assessment of past conduct and future threat, not merely registration of an FIR.

Types of 'Externment'

The term externment—though broadly understood as a preventive action to remove an individual from a defined area—is implemented differently across Indian states, both in substance and nomenclature. These differences arise due to the divergence in police acts, judicial interpretations, administrative structures, and even local customs.

Variations in statutory and colloquial terminology.

While official records use “externment,” civil society organisations, particularly in rights advocacy, describe the practice using terms like:

• “Banishment without trial”
• “Administrative exile”
• “Non-custodial restriction”
• “Movement curtailment under pretext of order”

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), for instance, in its report on Nagpur policing, noted that externment was often used disproportionately against marginalised communities, especially in urban informal settlements.

Slight conceptual differences in its operational logic.

Different states employ varying terms for similar procedures:

Term/Nomenclature	Jurisdiction	Governing Legislation	Purpose/Notes
Externment	Maharashtra, Gujarat	Bombay Police Act, 1951	Habitual offenders, gang control
Goonda Act Removal	Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh	Goondas Act, 1982 (TN); Goonda Act, 1970 (UP)	Broader preventive framework including detention & area removal
Suraksha Adhiniyam	Madhya Pradesh	MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990	Preventive orders including externment and detention
Preventive Ban Order	Delhi	Delhi Police Act, 1978	Geographical exclusion from NCT
Public Nuisance Control	Andhra Pradesh	AP Police Act + local orders	Externment under peace & nuisance grounds

These nomenclatural shifts reflect local socio-legal histories, but also result in differences in implementation, monitoring, and data recording.

Functional variations in terms of scope and powers across police jurisdictions and High Courts.

Maharashtra and Gujarat: Externment orders under Sections 56–60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 are well-institutionalised. Police routinely issue externment orders following local intelligence, pending cases, and criminal dossiers. High Courts have emphasised that externment must not be punitive but prophylactic, grounded in recent activity.

Delhi: Under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, externment orders are used to tackle gang rivalry, communal tension, and anti-social assembly. Courts have warned against blanket usage and have required specificity of allegations.

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has quashed multiple externment orders on grounds of vagueness, political misuse, and procedural irregularities. Courts insist on establishing a "live link" between past activity and present necessity.

Uttar Pradesh: The UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, allows externment-like orders under Section 3(1) if a person is found to intimidate or terrorise locals. However, critics argue the term “goonda” is vague, leading to potential misuse without trial.

Different thresholds of procedural safeguards and rights protections.

At its core, externment is a preventive administrative action. However, its conceptual justification varies:

• In Maharashtra and Gujarat, externment is used primarily for habitual offenders and gang activity, with a strong focus on urban crime control. The focus is on anticipatory exclusion from a locality before any specific crime occurs.
• In Delhi, externment under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, is linked more closely with public tranquility in politically sensitive or riot-prone zones.
• In Karnataka, orders are frequently passed under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, where the emphasis is more on repeat offences and breach of peace. Here, it leans closer to the logic of security for good behaviour.

The legal threshold for issuing an externment order also varies. While some jurisdictions require multiple FIRs or criminal records, others permit externment based on subjective satisfaction backed by police intelligence reports.

International Experience

Although the term “externment” is uniquely entrenched in Indian administrative law, especially in the context of state policing acts, the broader concept—removal or exclusion of a person from a specific geographical area for public safety—has legal counterparts around the world. Globally, jurisdictions deploy mechanisms like internal exile, residence bans, area restrictions, and control orders to regulate persons perceived as threats to public order, even in the absence of a criminal conviction. These frameworks share the preventive aim of externment but vary widely in procedural protections, duration, and scope.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the law does not refer to “externment” per se, but the idea is operationalized through Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) under the TPIM Act 2011. TPIMs allow for measures such as prohibiting a person from entering certain areas, mandating relocation, and imposing curfews. These are imposed without a criminal trial but are subject to initial judicial authorisation and subsequent review, ensuring a robust check on executive discretion. Such control orders offer a functional equivalent of externment in a rights-conscious legal system.

France

Similarly, France imposes residence bans (interdiction de séjour) as part of its administrative policing toolkit, particularly under anti-terrorism and criminal recidivism legislation. These bans prevent individuals from entering specific communes or regions for a prescribed period. Notably, they may be applied post-conviction or through administrative mechanisms, but must conform to proportionality principles and are subject to appeal before administrative courts.

Canada

In Canada, peace bonds issued under Section 810 of the Criminal Code permit courts to impose restrictions on individuals where there is a reasonable fear that they may commit a crime. These may include geographical restrictions similar to externment. Unlike in India, where the executive often exercises this authority, Canadian law mandates judicial issuance and evidence-based review. The peace bond system also allows the individual to contest the proposed conditions before a neutral magistrate.

Australia

Australia’s legal system presents another strong comparator. Its Criminal Code Act 1995, particularly Part 5.3, empowers courts to issue control orders for individuals suspected of terrorist-related conduct. These orders may include residency restrictions, area bans, electronic monitoring, and restrictions on communication. Crucially, such orders require judicial sanction at every stage, and the subject must be allowed representation and review. Control orders are issued only when absolutely necessary and proportional to the perceived threat.

Turkey

Turkey offers an historical instance of internal exile under emergency provisions, particularly during the Kurdish conflict. While modern democratic standards have curtailed the practice, governors still wield limited powers under Law No. 5442 on Provincial Administration to impose movement restrictions. Human rights watchdogs, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have raised concerns about such actions, often taken without meaningful judicial review or transparent evidence.

South Africa

The South African apartheid regime infamously employed “banning orders” and “internal exile” to silence dissenters. While no longer legal, these historical cases demonstrate how geographic exclusion policies, when exercised without procedural fairness, can become tools of political oppression. This dark legacy continues to inform international opposition to any form of non-judicial movement restriction, a concern that is increasingly raised regarding India’s externment practice in states like Maharashtra and Delhi.

Comparison with Indian Practice

Externment in India is primarily authorised through state-level police legislation, such as the Bombay Police Act, 1951, Delhi Police Act, 1978, or Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. These statutes permit a police commissioner or district magistrate to remove a person from a defined area if they are deemed a threat to public order, usually for a maximum period of two years. However, this power is exercised without prior judicial sanction, and though review mechanisms exist, they are rarely invoked due to lack of legal aid and procedural awareness.

This differs markedly from global best practices. In the UK, TPIMs can only be authorised by the Home Secretary with judicial approval and are renewable every year only upon fresh evidence. Moreover, TPIMs are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, and the affected individual may appeal to a court for modification or revocation. India, by contrast, has no such legislative oversight, and externment orders are often issued based on police dossiers that lack corroboration or contain outdated information.

Similarly, while Canadian peace bonds and French residence bans are issued by courts or reviewed judicially, Indian externment orders are administrative in character, and the onus of challenging them lies entirely on the affected individual—often without effective access to legal counsel. Moreover, transparency in issuance is minimal, and there are no annual disclosures on how many orders were passed, the grounds cited, or their outcomes.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which India has ratified, enshrines in Article 12 the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. It permits restrictions only when they are necessary, proportionate, and provided by law. The UN Human Rights Committee has further clarified in its General Comment No. 27 that any restriction of movement must be subject to due process, non-discriminatory in nature, and open to judicial scrutiny.

These safeguards are partially or entirely absent in the Indian externment framework. Courts in India, including the Supreme Court in Prem Chand v Union of India, have held that externment must meet the test of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, but in practice, High Courts continue to receive hundreds of petitions every year seeking to quash illegal or mala fide externment orders. Many of these orders are overturned for being vague, stale, or based on unverified claims.

By contrast, Australia and the UK publish anonymized data on control orders, their rationale, and duration, enabling both public scrutiny and policy refinement. In India, data about externment is neither standardized nor routinely disclosed—leading to gaps in accountability and challenges in conducting research or audits on misuse patterns.

Learnings

A comparative review suggests several international best practices that India could consider integrating. First, the requirement of judicial pre-approval before issuing an externment order would bring Indian practice closer to global human rights norms. In systems like Canada’s and the UK’s, such approval ensures independent verification of the threat perception, and guards against misuse for political or communal targeting.

Second, implementing mandatory periodic review and sunset clauses can prevent indefinite exclusion. For instance, TPIMs must be renewed annually, and Australian control orders expire after 12 months unless fresh evidence emerges. Indian externment orders, though time-bound, are often renewed without scrutiny or even served afresh with minimal material variation.

Third, publicly available data, modelled on the disclosure practices of Australia and the UK, would enable oversight by civil society, academics, and courts. The Ministry of Home Affairs could consider maintaining a centralised externment dashboard, listing anonymised data by state, legal grounds, appeal outcomes, and duration.

Lastly, standardisation across states is essential. Currently, externment practices differ significantly between Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh. A model national externment framework, possibly crafted under the guidance of the Law Commission or an expert panel, could harmonise definitions, thresholds, and rights protections.

Externment, as practised in India today, exists in a legal vacuum of unstandardised laws, poor transparency, and minimal oversight. Compared to international counterparts—where similar restrictions are judicially sanctioned, transparent, proportionate, and reviewable—India’s executive-driven approach appears outmoded and vulnerable to misuse.

The international experience makes it abundantly clear: prevention does not justify arbitrariness. Whether it is the UK’s TPIM framework, Canada’s peace bonds, or France’s residence bans, these models integrate due process, evidence-based action, and human rights compliance at every stage. It is imperative that India reevaluates its externment laws to uphold the constitutional values of liberty and fairness.

Research that engages with 'Externment'

Operation of Special Laws Relating to Externment of Bad Characters

The 1969 study titled “Operation of Special Laws Relating to Externment of Bad Characters” by R. Deb, D.R. Puri, Kalyan Rudra, Y. Vaikuntha, and S.M. Edmond, published in the Journal of the Indian Law Institute, is one of the earliest authoritative academic attempts to unpack the legal and administrative practice of externment in India. The study goes beyond codified legal provisions such as the Bombay Police Act and Bengal Goonda Act by offering a layered analysis of the sociopolitical context in which externment laws function. It historically traces externment from its roots in Hindu legal traditions to colonial laws, and evaluates its use as a regulatory and preventive policing strategy. The authors present externment not merely as a legal tool, but as a response to the challenges of evidence collection, witness intimidation, and political patronage surrounding habitual offenders. It further critiques the limitations of the Indian Penal Code and Habitual Offenders Acts in dealing with organized criminality, thereby arguing that externment is a “more humane” alternative to preventive detention.

However, while the paper is rich in empirical observation and legislative review, it exhibits certain conceptual and methodological gaps. First, it overwhelmingly adopts a law enforcement perspective, offering limited engagement with civil liberties concerns or due process issues. There is little exploration of the social identity of those targeted—especially caste, class, or minority status—nor does it consider how externment intersects with power structures or democratic dissent. Moreover, despite touching on rural and urban contexts, the paper doesn't offer disaggregated or comparative data across regions or communities. Later works by CSOs and contemporary legal scholars would attempt to fill this gap by documenting case studies of misuse, rights violations, and political targeting under externment provisions. Thus, while foundational, the 1969 study builds the conceptual base but leaves open significant space for critical engagement from rights-based, intersectional, and empirical perspectives.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah of Kashmir, 1965–1975: From Externment to Enthronement

This research article reframes externment not merely as a legal tool of spatial banishment, but as a deeply political act with long-lasting ramifications for identity, sovereignty, and reconciliation. By tracing Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s twelve-year period of detention and exile from Jammu and Kashmir (1953–1975), the paper demonstrates how externment served as both a technique of state control and a strategy of delegitimising political dissent. It moves beyond the statutory understanding of the term by embedding it in the Kashmir conflict’s emotional, ideological, and geopolitical contexts. Drawing on archival correspondence, political memoirs, and insider accounts, the paper shows how Abdullah's enforced absence from Kashmir and his eventual political rehabilitation illuminate the Indian state’s oscillation between coercive exclusion and instrumental inclusion. In this, the article transforms externment from a bureaucratic act into a symbol of national anxiety and shifting political settlements.

While the paper is rich in narrative detail and successfully historicises externment within the politics of postcolonial state-making, it leaves open key analytical gaps. It treats externment more as an episode in elite politics than as a practice with broader social effects on local populations or political movements. Unlike studies that situate externment within theories of carceral geography or administrative violence, this paper focuses primarily on a single individual, thus missing an opportunity to generalise the implications of such spatialized exclusions. There is also a partial overlap with literature on preventive detention and political imprisonment, but the distinctiveness of externment as a tool of symbolic exile rather than mere incarceration could have been developed more fully. This invites further research into how externment practices have evolved beyond elite figures to include activists, journalists, or entire communities.

The Indigenization of English in Pakistan

This paper explores how English has been localized in Pakistan by incorporating native lexicon, idioms, and socio-cultural nuances. Among its many observations, Baumgardner notes how certain terms—such as externment and extern—have entered Pakistani English as standard legal-administrative vocabulary. These terms, while absent or uncommon in global English usage, have developed a locally resonant, bureaucratically “neutral” yet sinister connotation in South Asia, particularly in contexts involving state surveillance or exclusion of political actors. By tracking the semantic evolution of such words, the paper provides rare insight into how the linguistic register of legal control—like externment—is both retained from colonial precedents and re-signified in contemporary governance.

However, the paper’s engagement with externment is illustrative rather than analytical—it notes the usage but does not examine the legal or socio-political mechanics of the practice. This leaves a conceptual gap when compared to doctrinal or historical research that interrogates the practice as a form of spatialized punishment or preventive control. Nevertheless, its identification of externment as a term that has acquired naturalized currency in post-colonial administrative English adds a valuable linguistic dimension to the study of law and statecraft in South Asia. The overlap with literature on post-colonial legal English is evident, but its connection to the material violence of externment remains implicit, inviting interdisciplinary elaboration.

Is an Individual Bound by an Illegal Executive Order? Distinction Between “Void” and “Voidable” Administrative Orders

This seminal article uses the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat—which concerned the violation of an externment order under the Bombay Police Act—to question the enforceability of illegal executive actions. Jain interrogates the fundamental premise: can an individual be punished for violating an order later held to be unlawful? Drawing from comparative jurisprudence and policy-based reasoning, the article critiques the ambiguity surrounding the terms "void" and "voidable," arguing that externment orders that violate principles of natural justice should be treated as nullities from inception. The author explores how such orders, while facially legal, may mask unconstitutional uses of power, especially when they restrict fundamental freedoms without due process.

Unlike many works that examine externment as a public order tool, this piece exposes the doctrinal fragility and legal indeterminacy of the state’s claim to legitimacy in issuing such orders. However, the paper remains largely jurisprudential and doctrinal in focus, with little sociological analysis of how externment operates on the ground, particularly among vulnerable communities. Its overlap with broader administrative law scholarship is evident, but it offers a crucial perspective on how externment can be contested not just as overreach, but as a violation of individual constitutional rights—thereby laying conceptual ground for challenging similar orders beyond this particular statute.

Externing Subversion: Some Reflections on the Administrative Strategies of the Late Colonial State in British India, 1939–42

This paper reconstructs the use of externment during World War II as an administrative technique employed by the late colonial state to preemptively contain anti-colonial dissent. Focusing on the cases of two individuals—Surendra Nath Sarkel and Bijoy Krishna Pal—Mukherjee illustrates how colonial authorities sought to spatially fix former revolutionaries through province-specific restrictions under the Defence of India Act. The essay significantly goes beyond legal formalism by revealing how the enforcement of externment orders was conditioned by informal power networks, executive improvisation, and individual negotiation with state authorities. By foregrounding the bureaucratic discretion, legal incoherence, and the variable implementation of these orders, the paper develops externment as a historically contingent and deeply politicised practice of administrative subjugation.

Yet, the paper’s emphasis on the wartime colonial context reveals both a strength and a gap. While it vividly captures the inner workings of the colonial intelligence and police bureaucracy, it does not offer a comparative analysis of how such administrative practices were retained or transformed in post-colonial India. Its rich archival detail partially overlaps with literature on preventive detention, but distinguishes itself by centering spatial exclusion as a distinct instrument of governance. This opens an important direction for further research—tracing the institutional continuity of externment orders from colonial to contemporary regimes, and analysing how spatialised statecraft continues to operate in contexts of dissent and political suspicion.

Challenges

The term externment—defined legally and administratively as the prohibition of an individual from residing or entering a specified area, usually imposed as a preventive measure to maintain public order—presents significant challenges for analysis across data collection, legal processing, and implementation frameworks. Despite its usage within several legal jurisdictions, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, its opaque statutory basis, discretionary enforcement, and lack of procedural uniformity hinder comprehensive scholarly and policy-oriented analyses. The conceptual ambiguity of externment, compounded by its overlap with terms such as “banishment,” “expulsion,” and “preventive detention,” creates definitional challenges that obstruct effective data codification and procedural standardization.

The first set of challenges arises at the level of data—both in terms of availability and classification. There exists a fundamental problem with the quantification of externment orders because these measures are often issued administratively and remain outside the purview of routine criminal justice statistics. As highlighted by Sweeney et al., even data claimed to be anonymized or publicly available often permits re-identification, revealing both gaps in data protection and the potential misuse of externally processed legal records. This raises immediate concerns regarding the classification of externment-related decisions in publicly accessible formats, leading to systemic underreporting and selective visibility.

The issue is exacerbated in jurisdictions like India, where state-level statutes, such as the Maharashtra Police Act 1951 (Section 56), empower district magistrates or police commissioners to issue externment notices based on their subjective satisfaction that an individual poses a threat to public order. However, such discretionary powers are infrequently subject to transparent audit, which impairs the building of datasets that can facilitate longitudinal or comparative analysis. As documented in the judicial review of Deepak Suresh Yadav v State of Maharashtra, the courts have repeatedly criticized the lack of objective criteria in issuing externment orders, yet data on overturned orders is not systematically compiled or disclosed.

Even where data exists, standardization remains a significant barrier. Unlike preventive detention, externment is not always recorded within centralized national security or prison databases. Its administrative execution may involve municipal authorities, police departments, and judiciary, each with different documentation systems. This fragmentation echoes the findings of Tang et al., who note that research on interlinked systems is limited by inconsistencies in data linkage protocols and system interoperability. This systemic decentralization means that one cannot retrieve a unified national picture of the extent or success of externment as a policy tool.

The procedural challenges in externment analysis are equally acute. The legal process for issuing an externment notice lacks uniform procedural safeguards. Though some jurisdictions may require a hearing or review before enforcement, many allow ex parte decisions based solely on police intelligence or administrative reports. In many cases, affected individuals have little to no recourse to challenge such orders effectively, particularly when legal aid is unavailable or public defenders are overstretched. As Ruth-Sahd et al. observe in a different context, successful procedural implementation often relies on the presence of structured pathways and support mechanisms for stakeholders involved. Externment, however, is characterized by procedural opacity and bureaucratic informality, rendering such structured support largely absent.

Moreover, legal analysis and interpretation of externment is hampered by inconsistent case law and statutory language. Different states or provinces may include or exclude certain grounds such as habitual offender status, suspected criminal activity, or mere association with criminal elements. This variation complicates any cross-jurisdictional assessment. A key insight offered by Williams, in his framework for implementation assessment, is the need for consistency in the normative basis of legal implementation to evaluate effectiveness meaningfully. Unfortunately, externment regimes remain loosely codified and largely resistant to uniform procedural or interpretive frameworks.

Implementation challenges extend beyond legal vagueness into operational inefficiency and potential misuse. The real-world enforcement of externment orders often faces logistical constraints such as inadequate surveillance of the externed individual, poor inter-agency coordination, and minimal follow-up mechanisms. Once issued, many externment orders are not monitored for compliance, and individuals may return to the prohibited area without consequence. Furthermore, in highly politicized environments, externment may be selectively applied against political dissidents or marginalized communities, creating a risk of discriminatory enforcement. Pagallo, in discussing the ethical frameworks of AI law, emphasizes the risks posed by discretionary implementation of rules without accountability—principles that hold for externment enforcement as well.

The lack of transparency is not only procedural but also institutional. Departments or agencies enforcing externment often do not publish guidelines or procedural manuals. This absence of clear implementation protocols was noted in Ramirez’s project on building administrative project management frameworks for governmental ministries, where disorganized implementation processes were directly linked to inconsistent performance and outcome tracking. Applied to externment, this implies that departments operate without a strategic implementation model, limiting accountability.

Equally important are the societal implications and challenges posed by externment orders. Such orders, while intended to maintain public safety, can have profound psychosocial effects, effectively displacing individuals without trial and marginalizing them from familial, social, and economic support systems. This is particularly pronounced when the externment order spans months or years and applies to urban centers where the individual may reside or work. As emphasized in the work by Ma on institutional sustainability, the exclusionary practices—whether financial or legal—undermine developmental aims and reinforce structural inequality. Similarly, externment creates spatial injustices by displacing individuals without rehabilitation or compensatory mechanisms.

The challenges in judicial oversight also merit attention. High courts have occasionally intervened to quash externment orders that violate constitutional principles, particularly Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) in India. However, such interventions occur post hoc, long after the affected individual has suffered the consequences of exclusion. Moreover, courts rarely issue guidelines on standardizing the process. This inconsistency contributes to a legal vacuum that encourages arbitrary application. Alexiadou's research on implementation in institutional contexts reflects how procedural indeterminacy within administrative systems leads to inconsistent and often regressive policy outcomes.

Furthermore, contemporary criminological studies have raised ethical concerns about the use of externment as a “predictive” or “preemptive” form of punishment. Since it does not require conviction or trial, externment becomes part of a broader discourse on risk-based governance and pre-crime control. This orientation, as observed in the work by Dillbeck et al., aligns with ideological frameworks that value security over due process, often at the expense of civil liberties. The challenge here is philosophical and legal: does a society that employs externment accept that freedom of movement and presumption of innocence are expendable under the pretext of preventive law enforcement?

In conclusion, the challenges associated with analyzing the term externment cut across conceptual, data, procedural, and implementation axes. Its elusive legal framing, lack of uniform data standards, discretionary procedural enforcement, and minimal institutional transparency create a fragmented field resistant to empirical analysis and critical evaluation. These challenges not only obstruct academic inquiry but also shield potential rights violations from scrutiny. To address these deficits, scholars and policymakers must advocate for statutory clarity, centralized data collection, procedural safeguards, and transparent implementation protocols. Only then can externment evolve from a shadowy preventive tool into a legally defensible and democratically accountable mechanism.

Way Ahead

The discourse surrounding externment laws in India has increasingly come under scrutiny, with stakeholders across the legal spectrum—judges, legal scholars, policy researchers, and reform commissions—calling for significant reforms to ensure such powers are used judiciously, transparently, and in conformity with constitutional principles. At the forefront of judicial critique is the Bombay High Court’s observation in Deepak Suresh Yadav v State of Maharashtra, where the bench warned against the "draconian" misuse of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that externment orders, being preventive and often infringing on the right to movement and livelihood, must satisfy strict procedural fairness and proportionality under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that "mere suspicion or vague allegations cannot justify such drastic exclusionary action," urging authorities to ensure a reasoned, evidence-backed inquiry precedes any such order.

Scholarly contributions have also critically engaged with the theme of misuse and vagueness in externment powers. J. Sindhu, writing in the National Law School of India Review, offers a normative theory of judicial review that incorporates proportionality and necessity tests for all executive actions affecting fundamental freedoms. Applying this framework to externment, Sindhu argues that "external relocation measures cannot rest solely on the administrative 'satisfaction' of the police" but must instead be subjected to a structured justification matrix that includes: (1) a legitimate aim, (2) a rational connection to evidence, (3) minimal impairment of rights, and (4) overall balance between state interest and individual rights. This test, already employed in other fundamental rights jurisprudence, could serve as a constitutional check against arbitrary enforcement of externment.

From the perspective of institutional research, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) has provided on-ground insights into the use of externment powers in Maharashtra's Chandrapur district during alcohol prohibition efforts. The study revealed that many externment orders were issued without prior community consultation, often resulting in socio-economic disruptions. ORF's policy brief recommends making externment orders reviewable by local grievance redressal committees, and integrating stakeholder engagement—including public health experts, sociologists, and civil liberties groups—before issuing such orders. It stresses that enforcement without social legitimacy undermines both the efficacy and ethical justification of the law.

In a broader legal reform context, D. Jain and A. Singh, writing under the aegis of the Jindal Global Law School, argue for statutory reforms to abolish or drastically restrict externment powers as presently defined. They highlight that externment is frequently wielded as a tool of extra-legal punishment, bypassing criminal trial safeguards and disproportionately affecting minorities and the poor. Their recommendations include: (i) mandatory judicial approval before enforcement, (ii) data transparency via the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), and (iii) a moratorium on issuing externment orders except in cases involving imminent threat to public order, with periodic legislative review. They also stress the importance of citizen-awareness mechanisms about rights and remedies in cases of wrongful externment.

Together, these recommendations reflect a growing consensus: that externment in its current legal and operational form suffers from definitional ambiguity, excessive discretion, and systemic lack of accountability. The way ahead thus demands both legal reform and administrative restructuring.

• First, externment laws must be reframed through legislative amendments that incorporate proportionality, transparency, and judicial oversight.
• Second, law enforcement agencies must be trained to view externment not as a default preventive tool, but as an extraordinary measure subject to robust scrutiny.
• Third, centralized databases must record every externment case with anonymized details and reasoning, so that civil society and research institutions can assess patterns and disparities.
• Finally, public legal education about externment rights and remedies must be included in state human rights agendas to protect vulnerable populations. These reforms are not merely administrative; they are constitutional necessities in a rights-respecting democracy.