Mumbai — A two‑judge bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday scrutinised a petition that sought to declare a Mumbai resident an “extern” under the Bombay Police Act after he allegedly shouted the slogan “BJP, Amit Shah murdabad” (BJP, Amit Shah, death to you) at a public rally. The bench, headed by Justice R. B. Jamdar, asked the petitioner’s counsel to explain how the mere utterance of a political slogan could justify an order that would bar the individual from residing in the city. In doing so, Justice Jamdar warned that the petitioner could simply “switch political sides” to have pending First Information Reports (FIRs) against him “washed clean” through what he described as the government’s “washing machine.”
What happened
The petition, filed by a private citizen, alleged that the respondent’s repeated chanting of the slogan constituted a threat to public order and amounted to incitement of hatred against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its leader Amit Shah. The petitioner asked the court to invoke the Bombay Police Act to label the respondent an “extern,” a designation that would prohibit him from living in Mumbai.
The respondent’s counsel countered that the slogans fell squarely within the ambit of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of India and that no violence, intimidation or imminent danger had resulted from the utterances. The court noted that FIRs had been lodged against the respondent on grounds of “hurting religious sentiments” and “promoting enmity,” but the petitioner had not produced concrete evidence linking the slogans to any criminal act.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar questioned the procedural logic of the petition, asking, “If the petitioner can simply switch political sides, can the FIRs against him be wiped clean through the government’s washing machine?” The remark signalled the bench’s scepticism about the efficacy and fairness of using legal mechanisms to settle political disputes.
The bench reserved its judgment, indicating that further submissions may be required to establish a direct nexus between the slogans and any bona‑fide threat to public order.
Why it matters
The case sits at the intersection of two fundamental concerns in India’s democratic framework: the protection of political speech and the state’s authority to maintain public order. Indian jurisprudence has traditionally afforded a high degree of protection to political expression, intervening only when speech incites violence or poses a clear and present danger. A decision to label a political chant as grounds for externment could set a precedent that criminalises dissenting slogans without substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
Justice Jamdar’s comment about “switching political sides” and the “washing machine” also raises broader questions about the use of law enforcement agencies to pursue political objectives. If FIRs can indeed be cleared through administrative discretion, it may undermine confidence in the impartiality of police investigations, especially in a highly polarised political environment.
Background and context
The petition invokes the Bombay Police Act, a colonial‑era statute that allows the police commissioner to declare a person an “extern” if the individual is deemed a threat to public safety. Under the Act, an externed person is barred from residing in the jurisdiction and may be subject to removal.
In recent years, India has witnessed a surge in politically charged slogans and chants at public gatherings, often targeting the ruling party or its leaders. While many such expressions are protected as political speech, authorities have sometimes responded with FIRs alleging “hurting religious sentiments” or “promoting enmity.” The respondent in this case faces FIRs on those grounds, but the petitioner’s request seeks a more severe sanction—externment—based solely on the content of the chant.
Competing claims and uncertainty
The petitioner argues that the chant “BJP, Amit Shah murdabad” is not merely a political slogan but a threat that could disturb public order. The petitioner’s counsel has not, however, presented evidence of any violent incident, public disturbance, or direct incitement linked to the chant.
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel maintains that the chant is protected speech. The court’s observation that the FIRs pertain to “hurting religious sentiments” and “promoting enmity” suggests that the allegations against the respondent are framed in communal rather than purely political terms. The lack of concrete evidence tying the chant to a criminal act leaves a factual gap that the court appears reluctant to bridge without further material.
Justice Jamdar’s probing question about the petitioner’s ability to “switch political sides” underscores an uncertainty about whether the petition is a genuine public‑order concern or a tool for political retaliation. The bench’s decision to reserve judgment reflects this uncertainty and the need for additional factual clarification.
What to watch next
The next procedural step will likely involve the petitioner furnishing additional evidence to demonstrate a direct link between the chant and a tangible threat to public order. The court may also require the respondent to respond to the specific FIRs cited, including any investigative findings.
If the bench ultimately orders externment, it could trigger appeals to the Supreme Court, where the constitutional balance between free speech and public‑order powers would be examined. Conversely, a dismissal could reinforce the high threshold required to curtail political speech under the Bombay Police Act.
Legal scholars and civil‑rights groups are expected to monitor the case closely, as its outcome may influence future petitions that seek to use the externment provision against political dissent.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s interrogation of the petition to extern a resident for chanting “BJP, Amit Shah murdabad” highlights the delicate balance Indian courts must maintain between safeguarding free political expression and addressing genuine threats to public order. By questioning the logical basis of the petition and pointing to the possibility of political manipulation of law‑enforcement processes, Justice Jamdar signalled a cautious approach to expanding the reach of the Bombay Police Act. The pending judgment will clarify whether a political slogan, absent evidence of incitement or violence, can justify the severe sanction of externment, thereby shaping the contours of dissent in India’s democratic discourse.
Sources
Hindustan Times, “How can ‘BJP, Amit Shah murdabad’ slogans be grounds for externment, Bombay HC asks,” https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-can-bjp-amit-shah-murdabad-slogans-be-grounds-for-externment-bombay-hc-asks-101783049460916.html
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
