Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order, Makes Sharp Remarks on ‘Horse Trading’ in Maharashtra Politics
Court Says Peaceful Protest Cannot Be Ground for Externment; Oral Observations on Political Defections Draw Attention During Hearing
In a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional right to dissent, the Bombay High Court has quashed an externment order issued against a political activist, holding that merely organizing protests or raising slogans against government policies cannot justify forcing a person out of their locality under the Maharashtra Police Act. During the hearing, the Court also made widely discussed oral observations on the prevailing political situation in Maharashtra, referring to alleged “horse trading” and party defections in the State.
Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing a writ petition filed by Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who challenged the externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. The authorities had directed him to leave Mumbai and adjoining districts for one year, citing several criminal cases registered against him in connection with protests against various Central Government policies.
While allowing the petition, the High Court held that organizing morchas, dharnas, or demonstrations against decisions of the Government of India cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for externment. The Court observed that the action taken against the petitioner was mala fide and infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech, peaceful expression and the right to live with dignity.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar made notable oral remarks on the political climate in Maharashtra. Referring to recent instances of elected representatives switching political parties, the judge remarked that “horse trading” was taking place across the State. In a lighter vein, he also referred to the political expression “washing machine,” suggesting that politicians facing criminal cases often appear to receive favourable treatment after changing political affiliations. These comments, though not forming part of the operative judgment, attracted considerable public and political attention.
The Court further questioned whether citizens were being prevented from exercising their democratic rights merely because they opposed government decisions. Justice Jamdar orally observed that citizens cannot be treated as “slaves of the Indian Government” and emphasized that peaceful protest is an essential feature of a constitutional democracy. He questioned how slogans criticizing the government could, without more, justify the drastic measure of externment.
Examining the record, the High Court found that most of the criminal cases cited against the petitioner arose from demonstrations against measures such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and other public issues. The Court held that participation in democratic protests, absent any compelling evidence of danger to public order, could not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking externment powers under the Maharashtra Police Act.
Accordingly, the Court set aside both the original externment order dated 3 December 2025 and the appellate order dated 27 March 2026, granting complete relief to the petitioner. The judgment reiterates that extraordinary preventive powers affecting personal liberty must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and cannot be used to suppress legitimate political expression or peaceful dissent.
The ruling has generated wider legal and political discussion because it reinforces constitutional protections for peaceful protest while also highlighting judicial concern over the use of preventive administrative measures against political activists. Although the Court’s observations on “horse trading” and the so-called “washing machine” were oral comments made during the hearing rather than binding findings, they have sparked debate over political defections and accountability in Maharashtra’s contemporary political landscape.
