New Delhi: The Gujarat high court on Monday strongly criticised a sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) for passing an externment order – which prevents the person from entering a district – against a man who had called up the Godhra MLA’s son to question him about his father’s work.
According to the Times of India, Justice Paresh Upadhyay stayed the externment order on Pravinbhai Charan and sought an explanation from the SDM and MLA C.K. Raulji. Charan was externed on June 24 for a period of two years from the Panchmahals, Mahisagar, Dahod, Chhota Udepur, Vadodara (City and Rural), Kheda and Anand districts. He is a resident of Panchmahals.
“We do not run kingdoms. We are a democratic republic. Is this a republic in which a citizen cannot question his elected representative? Externment orders are passed upon doing so?” the court asked, describing the order as an “atrocity” against people at large.
According to reports, an FIR was registered against Charan in June this year by the Panchmahal police for calling Raulji’s son Malavdeepsinh on the phone and telling him that the MLA was “not doing his work”. While the Indian Express said that “heated words were exchanged” between Malavdipsinh and Charan after this, the Times of India says that the latter was also accused of issuing death threats.
While the government argued that the preventive measure was taken because of the alleged death threat, the court said if that was the case, Charan should have been arrested and not externed.
The judge added, “If somebody expresses his grievance before the MLA, then file an FIR? This should be stopped.” He said that today, if a person can be externed for seeking accountability from an MLA, it is only one step away from the possibility of somebody being externed if they do not vote for the MLA in the future.
The SDM’s order was based on three FIRs lodged against Charan since 2017, the last of which was the complaint filed by the MLA’s son. According to the Indian Express, the court noted the “glaring aspect” that of the three FIRs, one was from 2017 and another from 2019, both of which are “relatively stale”. The latest FIR by Raulji’s son Malavdipsinh appears “to have had been filed in retaliation”, the court said.
The high court said the SDM “needed to be immediately shifted”, according to the Times of India, since he did not work as a custodian of the people’s trust but as custodian of a politician’s interests. “You want to send a loud and clear message that you do not call the MLA’s son and ask about the MLA’s performance,” the judge said.
The court impleaded MLA Raulji, saying it would like to question him if he supports such an order.