“Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment…,” the high court said on June 25.

Externment, commonly known as jilabadar, is among the harshest preventive measures available to the administration, requiring a person to leave a district or even neighbouring districts for a specified period. The court noted that such an order directly affects a citizen’s right to reside, move freely and carry on a profession, making strict adherence to legal safeguards essential.

Chief Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi observed that the petitioner had not been given a meaningful opportunity to inspect the evidence against him.

Why doctor was externed

The proceedings stemmed from a report submitted by the superintendent of police, Durg, on September 24, 2025. The report described Dr Khosla, who runs Sai Clinic at Ahiwara, as a habitual troublemaker who allegedly abused, threatened and intimidated members of the public and government officials.

The police also claimed that he frequently filed false complaints against prominent citizens and that his conduct had created an atmosphere of fear in the locality. The report referred to five criminal cases registered against him between 2010 and 2025, including two cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and three under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

One of the cases registered in 2025 alleged that he made objectionable remarks against Jain saints, hurting religious sentiments. Based on these allegations, the district magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, and ordered his externment from Durg, Raipur, Bemetara, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod and Dhamtari for one year. His appeal before the Home Department was rejected in May this year.

Unfair, says doctor; state defends action

Dr Khosla argued that the externment proceedings were in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. He said the witnesses’ statements had been recorded even before he was served with notice and that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

According to the petitioner, he was neither allowed to cross-examine witnesses nor given access to the evidence relied upon by the authorities before the externment order was passed. He also argued that the authorities had mechanically relied on the registration of criminal cases without examining whether they actually established any threat to public order.

The state government defended the externment order, contending that Dr Khosla had consistently been involved in activities affecting public peace and that externment proceedings are preventive rather than punitive in nature. It said the authorities had issued notices on multiple occasions and that the petitioner himself failed to avail of the opportunities granted to him.

The state said preventive action does not require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the district magistrate had arrived at a subjective satisfaction after considering the available material.

Procedural violations: Court

The high court found that the proceedings suffered from serious procedural lapses. It noted that the notice dated December 26, 2025, was served on the petitioner only on January 1, the very day fixed for his appearance. By then, the statements of witnesses had already been recorded behind his back.

The court observed that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had been given a proper opportunity to inspect the evidence against him, cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence in his defence. Since externment has serious civil consequences affecting fundamental rights, the judge held that authorities were under a duty to strictly follow legal safeguards.

The district magistrate’s decision was not supported by adequate material and the proceedings stand vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, it said, adding that the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is well settled and preventive action can be sustained only when the material discloses a real and immediate threat to public order.

The bench held that mere registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot establish criminal propensity or justify banishing a citizen from his district. The allegations contained in the police report are largely general in nature and failed to show that witnesses were unwilling to come forward in public due to fear of the petitioner.

The high court also rejected the administration’s reliance on the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It pointed out that of the five criminal cases cited against him, three had already been disposed of while only two remained pending. Significantly, the petitioner had not been convicted in any of the cases.

Externment order quashed

Holding that the district magistrate’s satisfaction was unsupported by enough material and that the proceedings were vitiated by violation of natural justice, the high court allowed the writ petition.

It quashed both the January 8 externment order passed by the district magistrate and the May 7 appellate order of the Home Department, restoring Dr Khosla’s right to reside and practise in Durg. The court did not pass any order as to costs.