PREM CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1262 · Decided: 11-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

12_62 
A· 
PREM CHAND 
v. 
UNION 0~ INDIA AND ORS. 
November 11, 1980 
B 
[V. R. KruSHNA IYER, R. S. PATHAK & 0. CH!NN*PPA REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Delhi Police Act, 1978-Section.s 47 and So-Scope of-Allegations made 
itt externment order vague-Order if valid- Order should be passed or;ly when 
there is clear and present danger based 011 credible material. 
Exercising power under sections 47 and 50 of the Delhi Police Act,. 1978 
(which clothe the Commissioner of Police with externment powers for keeping 
the capital city free of crime) the Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi direc-
ted the appellant to show cause why he should not be externcd from the Union 
Territory of Delhi. The allegations against him were that his activities in the 
area of poli~ station Connaught •Place and the areas adjoining the police 
station were causing and were calculated to cause harm, alarm and danger 
to the residents of the said localities and areas that he kept a kcife with 
him for unlawful purposes and threatened residents of that area with dire 
consequences and deterred them from reporting to the police and that he 
had engaged himself in the commission of offences against persons and properly 
with force and violence. 
In bjs petition under ArticJe 32 of the Constitution challenging the vires 
of the externment proceedings as arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on 
his freedom of movement, the petitioner stated that over the past 25 years 
with the indulgence of the local police. he used to park his mobile refrigerated 
water-carts on the road side in front of a cine.ma theatre in Delhi and that in 
return for the indulgcnee shown to him by the police and to keep them in 
good humour he yielded to their pressure and gave false testimony in as many 
as 3000 cases. Even thQugh Courts had dubbed him as a stock witness and 
passed severe strictures and disbelieved his testimony, the police did not give 
him up; that he had to continue to act as a tool in their bands for the 
survival of his. business and that lately when he declined to oblige them 
because ho felt that his wealthy s-tation in life 
and the character-building 
stugo of his children warranted giving .up tho prorc.ssion of stock-witnoss, the 
police avenged themselves by threatening extcrnment which would inflict mortal 
cconomi<; injury to hin1 if tho threat was carried out. 
The Assistant Commissioner of Police in reply had stated that before the 
externment order was passed witnesses had been examined in camera in support 
and in opposition · of the allegations 
justifying 
cxternment and that on a 
consideration of the materials placed before the Deputy Commissioner 
of 
Police, including the education of his children and tho assurance given by the 
petitioner, final order had been passed directing him to show good conduct 
for a period of 3 months. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : The Delhi Police Act permits e.x.ternment provided tbe action is 
bona fide. 
All power, including police power, must be informed by fairne~s. 
if it is to survice judicial scrutiny. Mala 
fides 
is fatal if it is made out. 
[11640-E] 
PR¥M CHAND V. UNION OF INDIA (Krishna lyer, J.) 
1263 
Sections 47 and 50 of the Act have to be read. strictly; anr police 
apprehension is not enough; some ground or other is not adequate; there must 
be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes lhe 
movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or 
fraught with violence-. 
Like-wise there must be sufficient reason to believe 
that the person proceeded against is so dangerous that his mere presence in 
Delhi or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. 
A 
stringent test must be applied by Courts in order that this power is not abused 
to the detriment of . the citizen. 
Natural justice must be fairly complied with 
and vague allegations such as those levelled against the petitioner and secret 
hearings are gross violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21. 
(1267 G-H; 
A · 
B 
' '--
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Wri~ Pe~ition No. 305.0 of 1980. 
.... 
(Under Article. 32 of the ~onstituti9n) 
A. S. 'Sohal and M. C. Dhingra for the Petitioner. 
M: M. Abdul Khader, N. Netttar and M. N. Shroff for the 
Re~pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRisHNA IYER, J.-Who will police the police? Is freedom of 
movement unreasonably fettered if policemen are given power of 
externment for public peac~? These twin problems of disturbing 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.