The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 3, 2026) set aside a police externment order against a political activist, ruling that protests against government policies do not constitute grounds for such action. During the hearing, the court made oral observations on the state's political situation, using the term “horse trading” to describe legislators switching party affiliations.

Justice Madhav Jamdar disposed of a petition from Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, the general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Mr. Chaudhary had challenged externment orders issued against him on December 3, 2025, and March 27, 2026, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 6) and the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The court quashed both orders and cancelled the one-year externment period.

In its order, the court noted that Mr Chaudhary had organised morchas and dharnas against certain decisions of the Government of India. Justice Jamdar observed that these actions cannot be grounds for externment under the Maharashtra Police Act. The court stated that the action taken was mala fide and affected the petitioner’s rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The order added that citizens have the freedom to express their opinions and to live with dignity.

During the proceedings, the judge noted the petitioner’s party affiliation and made observations on the political arena in the State. The court referred to instances of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly switching parties. The judge stated that a political leader may be able to close criminal cases against oneself by joining a “washing machine,” in a reference to the ruling party. The court also noted that the State Assembly had been discussing the election of a Presiding Officer and his shift from one party to another.

Supreme Court judgments recognise dissent as a ‘symbol of a vibrant democracy’

The judge made additional oral remarks on the tendency to curb protests, stating that citizens were being treated as slaves of the Indian Government. These observations were made in the context of the court’s disapproval of restrictions on public dissent. With these findings, the bench disposed of the plea and set aside the externment orders.