The Supreme Court has struck down a one-year externment order that had banished a Raigarh resident, Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju, from his own district. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu found that the order was passed behind his back, while he sat in judicial custody, without any notice or chance to explain himself - something the law simply does not allow.
Background Of The Case
The case goes back to 2019, when the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, recommended externment proceedings against Rajpoot citing ten criminal cases registered between 2009 and 2019. A case was registered against him that year, but by October 2025, the District Magistrate closed it. The reason: Rajpoot had been acquitted in those old cases, no fresh police report had come in since 2019, and externment on that basis no longer held water. He was let off with a warning.
But things changed fast. An FIR from 2023, over an allegedly unauthorised colony, was already quashed by the High Court in 2024. Then, on 30th October 2025, a fresh FIR was registered against him for allegedly recording and circulating a video with abusive remarks against a revered Satnami community figure, Baba Guru Ghasidas. He was arrested the same day.
Acting on this, the District Magistrate reopened the closed case and, on 4th November 2025, passed a fresh externment order - directing Rajpoot to leave Raigarh and neighbouring districts for a year. He was in jail when this happened and only found out after being shifted to a different prison. He challenged this before the Chhattisgarh High Court, which dismissed his plea and told him to pursue a statutory appeal instead. That is when he approached the Supreme Court.
What The Court Observed
The bench was unsparing in its criticism of the process. It noted that Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, makes it mandatory to inform a person of the allegations against him and give him a real opportunity to respond before any externment order is passed - and that this was simply not done.
The Court also held that the District Magistrate had no power to reopen a case he had already closed, since no provision in the law permits such a review. On the merits, it found the order legally shaky too, observing:
"Apart from recording that the conduct attributed to the appellant had generated resentment and public outrage amongst members of certain communities, the said order does not indicate the material on the basis of which such conclusion was reached."
The bench also pointed out that the offences relied upon did not even fall within the categories of "force or violence" required under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam.
The Decision
The Supreme Court quashed both the High Court's order and the externment order, allowing Rajpoot to return freely to Raigarh and the surrounding districts.
It clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the criminal cases still pending against him.
-300x169.webp)
