Supreme Court: Externment order passed ex parte without hearing

The core issue is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and relegating him to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, despite the externment order being passed ex parte without notice or hearing.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Vijay Kumar Rajpoot (alias Vijju); Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Supreme Court noted that the impugned externment order was passed ex parte without prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who was in judicial custody at the time.
• The Court observed that one of the foundational FIRs (Crime No. 117/2023) for the externment had been quashed by the High Court.
• The Court noted that the appellant was enlarged on bail in the remaining FIR (Crime No. 483/2025).
• The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, specifically Sections 5 and 8, which mandate a hearing before passing an externment order.
• The document provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order, relief granted, or next date.

Also in the document

• The High Court had previously dismissed the appellant's writ petition, directing him to use the appeal remedy under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam.
• The District Magistrate recalled a previous closure order dated 06th October, 2025, and passed the impugned externment order on 04th November, 2025, citing fresh criminal acts and public outrage.
• The appellant was directed to remove himself from Raigarh district and contiguous districts for a period of one year.