Mahesh Shrivastva @ Jeeva v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
The current writ petition in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), was presented by Mahesh Shrivastva @ Jeeva, praying for the quashing of the externment order dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi, and the order dated 15.07.2025 of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, affirming the externment but converting its period from one year to eight months.
The petitioner, a long-term resident of Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, is married with two sons. He claimed to have been leading a peaceful and reformed life since 2018 after earlier facing several criminal cases, eight in total, out of which he was acquitted in all but one, where he had pleaded guilty and paid a fine of ₹500.
He argued that his previous experience working with the police as an informer had attracted the local criminals and some police personnel, and hence threats and false suggestions in later criminal cases. He mentioned incidents between 2023–2024, such as alleged false FIRs under the Arms Act and Section 324/34 IPC, threat of abduction, and police harassment, especially by SI Parkash Meena and other officers.
The petitioner further made submissions that he had raised various complaints and representations before top police authorities, even approaching a writ petition in 2024, which was ordered to be treated as a representation by the Commissioner of Police. But no relief accrued to him, and externment proceedings under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, were initiated against him.
A Section 50 notice was issued on 16.04.2024, citing the involvement of the petitioner in 11 criminal cases, including grave offences like abduction, extortion, attempt to commit culpable homicide, and offences under the Arms Act, Delhi Excise Act, and Gambling Act.
Upon hearing the petitioner and keeping his response in mind, the Additional DCP externed him from the NCT of Delhi for a period of one year, calling him a “dangerous and desperate criminal” whose presence was dangerous to public peace.
The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Lieutenant Governor was rejected on 15.07.2025, with the exception that his externment period was curtailed to eight months. Being aggrieved, he went to the High Court.
- Failure to apply mind: The externment order was issued mechanically without independent scrutiny of facts or procedural justice.
- Absence of immediate threat: The police failed to show any actual or imminent threat to public safety from the petitioner being present.
- Disregard of due process: The proceedings were arbitrary and biased; his elaborate response and employment records were not taken into account.
- Negative impact on livelihood: The externment took away his job and means of supporting his family, including a sickly son receiving treatment.
He argued that his record was being twisted to justify externment after years of peaceful behavior and lawful employment. The State resisted the petition, calling the petitioner a “habitual offender” and “desperate criminal” involved in 11 criminal cases of diverse nature. It contended that his activities were a threat to society, and his presence in Delhi threatened public order and safety.
It was argued that every procedural protection under Sections 47–50 of the Delhi Police Act was properly observed. The petitioner was informed of the allegations in the local language, given the opportunity of making a reply, and permitted to furnish surety and hire counsel. The order of externment was therefore proper and based on sufficient material.
The Court considered the extent of judicial review in cases of externment, reaffirming that such powers, as being extraordinary and preventive in nature, must be exercised cautiously and only where there is solid and proximate material warranting apprehension of public danger.
The Court pointed out that the order of the Lieutenant Governor and the Additional DCP’s report did not reflect any recent or tangible act on the part of the petitioner that threatened the community. The majority of the cases referred to were stale, resulting in acquittal or paltry punishment, and there was nothing to show that any witnesses were reluctant to give evidence against him, which was a necessary prerequisite under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act.
The Court held that the authorities had not made independent judgments in relation to the petitioner’s present behaviour, his work, or his domestic situation. The order of externment seemed to be premised on stale cases and unfounded presumptions, constituting non-application of the mind.
In addition, the order infringed the petitioner’s basic rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 since it curtailed his liberty and his livelihood without a believable reason.
The Court declared that the externment order of 24.04.2025 and the confirmatory order of 15.07.2025 were unsustainable in law. They had procedural infirmities, were devoid of substantive evidence, and employed mechanical reasoning.
In view of the above, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petition was granted. The Court ordered the authorities to reinstate the right of the petitioner to work and reside in Delhi.
