LT. GOVERNOR, NCT AND ORS V. VED PRAKASH @ VEDU INSC 283
Name Of The Case: LT. Governor, NCT and ORS v Ved Prakash
Facts: An externment proceeding was initiated against the respondent under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The Commissioner of Police alleged that the respondent's conduct was creating fear, danger, and damage to persons and property in the locality. A show-cause notice was issued stating that the respondent's intention was to cause such damage. He pleaded that on account of hostility displayed by the police officials against his brother, he was falsely implicated in a few cases. He stated that the allegations levelled against him are totally false and devoid of any substantial basis.
Issue: 1. Whether the show cause notice issued to the replier is vague or not specific. 2. Amount of substantiation required to grant the allocation of externment order under the meaning of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. 3. Rights of the replier with respect to externment proceedings and liabilities in law on the part of the authorities.
Holding: The High Court dismissed the respondent's argument that the notice was vague and confirmed the authority's ability to issue an externment order based on general claims. However, the Court did voice its disagreement with the earlier High Court ruling, noting that any externment order should only apply to areas where illegal activities occur. The appeal was granted and the order passed by the High Court was not acted upon. The case is decided with the learned insights that come about with respect to the nature of the allegations and the rights of the respondent.
Rationale: The high court cleared all the doubts that it had regarding the ambiguity of the showcause notice with regard to the respondent and went on to clearly narrate the main accusations against her. It was rightly marked by the court that in externment cases, not much evidence is required and hence general allegations are enough to serve the purpose for the sake of law. In addition, the Court recognized that the respondent had a right to be heard before any externment order could be passed and emphasized that any decision must be made on objective standards. It further stressed the need to apply the law with real-world understanding while safeguarding the basic rights of citizens. Witness accounts had shown that the respondent had threatened witnesses and carried out acts which had inflamed communal hatred. The Court held these allegations to be serious enough to be considered for the externment proceedings.
- [2] LT. Governor, NCT and ORS v Ved Prakash, 2006 INSC 298