Delhi High Court Upholds Externment Order: “Habitual Offender Status Does Not Depend on Frequency Within a Single Year but on Repeated and Persistent Involvement Over a Period”

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the externment order against the petitioner, who was involved in multiple cases under the Delhi Excise Act. The court upheld the decision of the competent authority to extern the petitioner for a period of one year from the NCT of Delhi, citing the petitioner’s continuous engagement in bootlegging activities and classification as a habitual offender. The court held that “the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the petitioner’s activities are hazardous to society does not call for interference.”

Facts:

The externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, based on her involvement in multiple FIRs under the Delhi Excise Act. Initially, the petitioner was served a show-cause notice in October 2020, referencing her involvement in three FIRs filed in 2018, 2019, and 2020. During the pendency of the proceedings, a supplementary notice was issued as the petitioner was found to be involved in three additional FIRs in 2021, 2022, and 2023 under similar charges.

The petitioner contended that all the FIRs were falsely filed and did not meet the statutory requirements for initiating externment proceedings under Section 47, arguing that the three FIRs were not registered within a single year. The respondent authorities countered that the petitioner’s activities were hazardous to society, thereby justifying the externment order.

Issues:

1. Whether the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act were justified.
2. Whether the petitioner’s involvement in FIRs in consecutive years can classify her as a habitual offender under the Act.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in issuing the externment order.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Violation of Legal Provisions: The petitioner argued that under the Delhi Police Act, externment proceedings require involvement in at least three cases in a single year. The three FIRs referenced in the initial notice were spread across three years (2018, 2019, and 2020).
2. Lack of Present Danger: The petitioner contended that her involvement in the FIRs did not pose an imminent threat or harm to the community, a necessary criterion under Section 47 of the Act.
3. Denial of Opportunity for Defense: The petitioner claimed that she was not given adequate opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and was denied the right to produce defense evidence.
4. Misapplication of Legal Precedents: The petitioner argued that the respondent’s reliance on Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat was misplaced, as the conditions for classification as a habitual offender under Section 47 were not satisfied in her case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Continuous Criminal Activities: The respondent argued that the petitioner’s consistent involvement in bootlegging cases under the Delhi Excise Act, even during the pendency of the proceedings, showed a pattern of habitual criminality.
2. Hazardous to Society: The petitioner was classified as a “Bad Character” of Bundle-A of PS Sagarpur, and her continued presence was creating alarm and danger among law-abiding citizens.
3. Validity of the Externment Order: The respondent emphasized that the externment order was based on credible material and was supported by statements recorded in camera due to the witnesses’ fear of testifying in public.
4. Adequate Opportunity Provided: The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to present her case, and her failure to produce defense evidence was deliberate, not a consequence of any procedural defect.

Analysis of the Law:

1. The court analyzed the scope of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, which provides grounds for externment if a person’s activities are hazardous or dangerous to the community. The court noted that the provision could be invoked if the person was found to be habitually involved in criminal acts that cause alarm or harm to the society.
2. The court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding the “three FIRs within a year” criterion, clarifying that Section 47 does not impose such a strict requirement for all categories of externment. It held that the habitual nature of the offenses was evident from the continued involvement in bootlegging activities even during the pendency of the proceedings.
3. The court distinguished the cited judgments, holding that the interpretation of “habitual” does not solely depend on the frequency of offenses within a single year but extends to repeated and persistent involvement over a period.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Prem Chand v. Union of India (1981 SC): The court reaffirmed that externment should only be used in cases where there is a clear and present danger based on credible evidence.
2. Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat (1999 SC): The court held that a person can be called a dangerous person if they are a habitual offender, defined by repeated involvement in criminal activities.
3. State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo (2005 SC): Judicial review should be limited in externment cases, and interference is only warranted if the order is irrational or based on procedural impropriety.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s repeated involvement in six FIRs over a span of six years demonstrated her habitual engagement in bootlegging activities, which posed a menace to society. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument that her activities did not fall under the scope of Section 47, as her consistent involvement indicated a “habitual and dangerous character.”

The court further observed that the principles of natural justice were adhered to, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to contest the charges, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense, which she chose not to exercise.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court upheld the externment order, noting that the petitioner’s persistent involvement in bootlegging and classification as a habitual offender under the Delhi Police Act warranted stringent action. The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Implications:

The judgment reaffirms the scope of externment under the Delhi Police Act, highlighting that habitual offenders can be externed even if the offenses are spread over multiple years. The decision underscores the need for strict measures against repeat offenders to maintain public safety and order.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: “Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage is Null and Void,” Upholds First Wife’s Claim for Family Pension — “Merely Being a Nominee Does Not Confer Legal Heirship”