The Bombay High Court ruled on Thursday that citizens have right to protest and that expressing dissent against the government does not justify expulsion from an area. This decision came as the court quashed an externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the Maharashtra General Secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India,who had been barred from entering Mumbai and its surrounding areas for one year.
Justice Madhav Jamdar presided over the case and questioned the rationale behind the externment order,which was issued by the Chembur deputy commissioner of police. The order cited slogans like “BJP government murdabad” and “Amit Shah murdabad” as grounds for the action against Chaudhary. judge emphasized that police officers are accountable to the public,not to government ministers.
In his ruling,Justice Jamdar stated that state's decision to extern Chaudhary infringed upon his fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and the right to live with dignity. He pointed out that the recent wave of protests across India,including those against National Eligibility cum Entrance Test paper leak,raises questions about the consistency of such orders . “Will you pass such orders against them too?” he reportedly asked the prosecution .
Chaudhary, a Chembur resident, has been active in organizing protests on various issues, including Citizenship Amendment Act, National Register of Citizens, alleged corruption within the waqf board, and rising fuel prices. The externment proceedings against him began in October under the Maharashtra Police Act. This was based on multiple first information reports (FIRs) filed between 2019 and 2024, which linked his protests to accusations of creating public disorder.
The deputy commissioner of police had issued externment order in December,claiming that Chaudhary’s activities posed danger to public order. This order was later upheld by the divisional commissioner of Konkan division during an appeal. Chaudhary contested both the initial order and appeal in the High Court, leading to the recent ruling.
The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting citizens' rights to express dissent and engage in political activism without fear of reprisal . It also raises broader questions about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding individual freedoms in context of political expression.
