Why is it that the executive is usually not accountable for acting contrary to law? The recent judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing the externment of Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Choudhary (July 2026) must be warmly welcomed. It recognises and gives teeth to the fundamental right to protest peacefully and without arms, guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, but it is still half justice. The High Court ought to have invoked Article 21 of the Constitution and done ‘complete’ justice.What is externment? It is the banishment of someone from an area or region. Children read story books and comics about kings banishing a subject from the kingdom for some wrong committed by them. But did you know that banishment can also happen in today’s India? That the Maharashtra Police Act (MPA) authorises and empowers a state government official – in modern-day India – to exercise such a kingly power?Sections 56 and 58 of the MPA empower an authorised officer to banish anyone from Mumbai, for up to two years, if he believes that “the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property…”This is precisely what happened to Choudhary – he was banished from Mumbai for one year by an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The facts of this case and the decision of the Bombay High Court are of considerable interest and concern regarding the use of draconian powers available to the authorities, in derogation of fundamental rights.Choudhary is a political activist in Mumbai belonging to the Social Democratic Party of India. He seems to have a history of participating in non-violent protests relating to government policies. Given his history of protests, by an order dated December 3, 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police externed him from Mumbai for a period of one year.The externment order could have been challenged by Choudhary through a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court but the law provides for a statutory appeal under section 60 of the MPA. Accordingly, Choudhary preferred an appeal before the concerned Divisional Commissioner on December 22, 2025.Also read: Police Reform via New Legislation Should Not Dilute State RoleIn the meanwhile, in compliance with the externment order, Choudhary was compelled to leave Mumbai and share an apartment with three of his colleagues in Mumbra, fairly close to Mumbai. Unfortunately, the Divisional Commissioner took his own time to process the appeal filed by Choudhary with the result that he had to file a writ petition in the Bombay High Court to take up and decide his appeal expeditiously since he was externed and not in his ordinary place of residence.The Bombay High Court took up his writ petition and after hearing the parties concerned, passed a direction on January 7, 2026, to hear and decide Choudhary’s appeal within 30 days.Ordinarily, the appeal ought to have been decided by the Divisional Commissioner on or before February 7, 2026 but for reasons that are not clear, the appeal was decided only on March 27, 2026 in disregard of the time-bound direction of the Bombay High Court.Remember, during this entire period, Choudhary was away from his ordinary place of residence due to the externment order. As one would expect, the appeal was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner. The order of externment and the appellate order were both challenged by Choudhary in the Bombay High Court.By a judgment and order dated July 2, 2026, the High Court set aside both orders. By this time, Choudhary had spent about seven months away from his ordinary place of residence and in Mumbra.While allowing the writ petition, the high court noted:“It is settled legal position that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure and effect of such order is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.” It was further held by the high court that the “action taken by the Respondent – state of Maharashtra – of externing the petitioner, merely for opposing certain decisions of the government of India, affects the petitioner’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and also right to live with dignity.”The high court then proceeded to quash both the impugned orders, holding that there was “no material on record to show that the movements or acts of the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.”Also read: From Bench to Bar, the Executive Tightens Its Grip on JusticeI may add that apart from the fundamental freedoms mentioned above, Choudhary’s fundamental right to peacefully protest, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, was also violated.In coming to the conclusion that it did, the high court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra (2022). In that case, Deepak was externed from district Jalna in Maharashtra and directed to remove himself for two years. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of the Gujarat high court in Mohammad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui (2021) wherein an order of externment had been passed for protesting a decision of the Union of India.These two cases, and I’m sure there are others, show that an archaic form of punishment, that is, banishment from a town or district, is very much in vogue even today. Should we accept such a state of affairs where the executive has the power to deprive a citizen not only of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India and also deprive that person of his dignity, which is an integral part of our constitutional jurisprudence?Isn’t it time for us to abolish imperial or royal diktats that can be thrust upon us by the executive under the shelter of laws that permit taking away the dignity and fundamental freedoms of citizens?Now consider the consequences of Choudhary’s externment. He had to stay away from his ordinary place of residence for seven months in a different town altogether. He was fortunate to get accommodation in Mumbra, which he had to share with three colleagues. Try and imagine your plight if you were to be externed from your ordinary place of residence and directed to find some other place of residence in some other town or district. It’s not easy. You would have, first of all, to search for appropriate accommodation and pay rent for that, which amounts to a form of monetary punishment.Also read: Unlawfully Detained Advocate Takes UP Police to Court, Wins CompensationThe other consequences of the externment order were that Choudhary had to live away from his family, including his children, for seven months. He was also deprived of the company of his friends, relatives and others within his social circle. He was also deprived of carrying out his political activities and the social work he was doing. But equally, if not more importantly, he was deprived of carrying on his business and profession, that of transport and construction material supply.Why do I say that only half justice was meted out to Choudhary? The Bombay High Court failed to compensate him for the unlawful deprivation of his fundamental rights and dignity for seven months. Merely quashing the externment orders did give him justice but not full justice. It would have been appropriate if the Bombay high court had directed the state of Maharashtra to adequately compensate Choudhary for the trauma he had been through.I would also add that the high court ought to have held the executive accountable for unlawfully depriving a citizen of his fundamental rights. The law on the subject is absolutely clear, particularly through a judgement of the Supreme Court. Why, then, did the executive resort to an extraordinary measure and force Choudhary to leave Mumbai and settle down for a year in a place outside the city?To make matters worse, despite the direction of the Bombay high court to decide his appeal within 30 days, the executive took more than double the period to decide his appeal. Is it that the executive is not accountable or is it that orders of the high court carry no value and may be complied with whenever it is convenient for the executive?In my view, Choudhary’s case raises fundamental and important constitutional questions relating to the exercise of the draconian, kingly power of banishment, the value and significance of fundamental rights, the power of the executive to violate fundamental rights and the dignity of a citizen, lack of accountability of the executive for passing unlawful orders and failure to compensate a citizen for wrongs inflicted upon him by the state.We need to discuss all these concerns at some appropriate time and place, but first lets abolish the practice of externment and hold the executive accountable in appropriate cases.Justice Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.