W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 1 of 12 $~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366762026 + W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24298/2026 PHOOLWATI @ PHOOLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubham Prajapati, Adv. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI), THROUGH SHO PS ADARSH NAGAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.S. Dagar, APP, Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs.
SI Ankit, PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.10.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed assailing the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, North-West District, Delhi, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove herself beyond the limits of the NCT of Delhi for a period of six months in exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter, the “DP Act”).
Challenge is also laid to the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi in Appeal No. 81/2026, whereby the aforesaid externment order was upheld.This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 2 of 12 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3.
The petitioner is a resident of Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi. On a proposal forwarded by the SHO, Police Station Adarsh Nagar through the ACP, Jahangir Puri, proceedings under Section 47 of the DP Act were initiated against her on 20.02.2026. A notice under Section 50 of the DP Act was issued informing her of the general nature of the material allegations and calling upon her to appear and show cause.
4.
The proceedings were founded upon the petitioner's involvement in 13 criminal cases registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar between the years 2021 and January, 2026, primarily under Sections 33/38 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. Of these, FIR No. 39/2026 dated 15.01.2026 and FIR No. 63/2026 dated 24.01.2026 were registered shortly before initiation of the externment proceedings.
5. The record further reflects that independent witnesses of the locality were examined in camera, who expressed unwillingness to depose against the petitioner in public on account of apprehension regarding the safety of their person and property.
On 21.04.2026, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority without counsel. The contents of the notice were explained to her in Hindi and her statement was recorded.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings, FIR No. 173/2026 dated 09.04.2026 under Sections 33/38 of the Delhi Excise Act came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Adarsh Nagar. On 22.05.2026, the MHC(R), Police Station Adarsh Nagar and the SHO concerned were examined before the competent authority.
Upon considering the material placed before it, including the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses recorded in camera, theThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 3 of 12 competent authority passed the order dated 22.05.2026 directing the petitioner to remove herself beyond the limits of the NCT of Delhi for a period of six months.
7.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 81/2026 under Section 51 of the DP Act before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi. Vide order dated 29.07.2026, the appeal was dismissed and the order of externment was upheld. Hence, the present petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to Section 47 of the DP Act.
It is contended that the Explanation appended to Section 47 requires involvement on not less than three occasions during the period of one year immediately preceding commencement of the proceedings before a person can be treated as habitually involved in the acts contemplated therein.
9. It is submitted that when the externment proceedings were initiated on 20.02.2026, only two cases had been registered against the petitioner during the immediately preceding year, namely, FIR No. 39/2026 dated 15.01.2026 and FIR No. 63/2026 dated 24.01.2026.
Learned counsel submits that FIR No. 173/2026 came to be registered only on 09.04.2026, after initiation of the proceedings, and could not have been taken into consideration for satisfying the requirement contained in the Explanation to Section 47.
10. Learned counsel further submits that none of the cases relied upon against the petitioner involves force, violence, bodily offences or use of weapons and that the cases are primarily under the Delhi Excise Act.
It is contended that there was no incident involving violence attributable to the petitioner and mere pendency of several criminal cases, in the absence of anyThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 4 of 12 conviction, could not constitute sufficient material for passing an order of externment.
11.
It is further contended that the proceedings stand vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an elderly and illiterate woman who remained unrepresented before the competent authority. Though the authority noticed that she had no legal representation, no legal aid counsel was appointed to represent her.
12. It is also submitted that FIR No. 173/2026, which was not mentioned in the original notice dated 20.02.2026, was introduced during the proceedings on 22.05.2026 without issuance of a supplementary notice or grant of an adequate opportunity to meet the said material.
13.
Learned counsel places reliance upon Deepak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2022 INSC 110, to submit that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure affecting the fundamental right of a person to move freely and reside at a place of her choice and, therefore, must be founded upon objective material bearing a live nexus with the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority. Reliance is also placed upon Vijay Kumar Rajpoot @ Vijju v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 926. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel representing the State supports the impugned orders and submits that the same have been passed upon due consideration of the material available before the competent authority and do not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner has repeatedly been involved in offences relating to illicit liquor and the material placed before the competent authority disclosed a continuous course of similar activity.
The status reportThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 5 of 12 records 13 cases between 2021 and January, 2026 which were considered at the time of initiation of the externment proceedings, apart from FIR No. 173/2026 registered during their pendency.
It is further submitted that the wider antecedent record of the petitioner disclosed numerous cases relating to illicit liquor.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the competent authority did not proceed merely on the number of FIRs. Independent witnesses from the locality were examined in camera and expressed their unwillingness to depose openly against the petitioner owing to apprehension concerning their person and property.
The competent authority, upon consideration of the said material, recorded its satisfaction that the movements and activities of the petitioner were calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm and that her presence in Delhi was hazardous to the community.
17. Insofar as the plea of absence of conviction is concerned, it is submitted that proceedings under Section 47 of the DP Act are preventive and not punitive in nature.
The authority is required to form its satisfaction on the basis of the material before it and a prior conviction is not a condition precedent to exercise of the power.
18. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. On 21.04.2026, the notice was explained to her in Hindi, her statement was recorded and she was specifically informed of her right to engage a counsel or to approach the Delhi Legal Services Authority for free legal assistance.
She was also afforded an opportunity to file a reply, furnish surety and produce defence witnesses. Despite the same, she appeared on 22.05.2026 without counsel, reply, surety or defence witness.
19. It is further submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner with regardThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 6 of 12 to the Explanation appended to Section 47 of the DP Act stands considered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3887, wherein, it was observed that the Explanation defining habitual commission has relevance to the clauses of Section 47 which employ the expression “habitually” and would not govern an order of externment founded upon the independent grounds contemplated under Section 47(a), (b) or (c)(i).
Reliance is also placed upon Ms. Monika v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2024:DHC:7605, wherein this Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in matters of externment and observed that interference with the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is warranted where the same is demonstrably perverse, based on no evidence or misleading evidence. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 20. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
21.
Section 47 of the DP Act contemplates, inter alia, a situation where the movements or acts of a person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, as also where the person is so desperate and dangerous as to render his or her being at large hazardous to the community. The provision further requires the competent authority to form an opinion that witnesses are unwilling to come forward and depose in public on account of apprehension regarding the safety of their person or property.
Section 47 of the DP Act reads as under: “Section 47 Removal of persons about to commit offences. Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of Police— (a) that the movements or acts of any person areThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 7 of 12 causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under section 290 or sections 489A to 489E (both inclusive) of that Code or in the abetment of any such offence; or (c) that such person— (i) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community; or (ii) has been found habitually intimidating other persons by acts of violence or by show of force; or (iii) habitually commits affray or breach of peace or riot, or habitually makes forcible collection of subscription or threatens people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others; or (iv) has been habitually passing indecent remarks on women and girls, or teasing them by overtures; and that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the Commissioner of Police may, by order in writing duly served on such person, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person to so conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or to remove himself outside Delhi or any part thereof, by such route and within such time as the Commissioner of Police may specify and not to enter or return to Delhi or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 8 of 12 Explanation.—A person who during a period within one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this section has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.” 22.
Much emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the Explanation appended to Section 47, which provides that a person who, during the period of one year immediately preceding commencement of action under the provision, has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or been involved in any of the acts referred to therein shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.
23.
In the present case, it is not disputed that, as on 20.02.2026, two cases, being FIR Nos. 39/2026 and 63/2026, had been registered against the petitioner during the immediately preceding year. FIR No. 173/2026 was registered subsequently on 09.04.2026. Thus, the subsequent FIR cannot be treated as an involvement preceding commencement of the proceedings for the purpose of invoking the deeming fiction contained in the Explanation.
24.
The matter, however, does not rest there. The Explanation cannot be read in isolation so as to make three involvements during the preceding year an inflexible condition for exercise of power under every limb of Section 47. The requirement of habitual conduct assumes relevance to those parts of Section 47 which expressly employ that expression. Section 47(a) and Section 47(c)(i), on the other hand, independently contemplate satisfaction regarding acts causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm and a person being so desperate and dangerous as to render his or her presence hazardous to theThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 9 of 12 community. The contention that no action whatsoever under Section 47 could have been taken unless three cases had been registered during the preceding year, therefore, cannot be accepted.
25.
The record in the present case also does not disclose that the externment order was founded merely upon the numerical strength of the criminal cases. The competent authority considered the petitioner's repeated involvement in similar offences over a period of time, including two cases registered immediately prior to initiation of the proceedings. More importantly, independent witnesses from the locality were examined in camera and the competent authority recorded that they were unwilling to depose publicly against the petitioner owing to apprehension regarding their safety and property.
On the basis of the material before it, the authority recorded its satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm and that her being at large was hazardous to the community.
26. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) this Court, while considering a similar contention, observed that the Explanation to Section 47 of the DP Act, prescribing three involvements within the preceding year for deeming an act to have been committed habitually, would not govern an order of externment founded on the independent grounds contemplated under Section 47(a), (b) or (c)(i).
27.
FIR No. 173/2026, registered during the pendency of the proceedings, cannot retrospectively satisfy the deeming requirement under the Explanation to Section 47. However, its consideration as subsequent material indicative of continuation of the same alleged activity stands on a different footing. The externment order cannot be said to derive its jurisdiction solely from the said FIR, since proceedings had already been validly initiated on the basis of theThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 10 of 12 material then available and the competent authority had independently recorded satisfaction on the other material before it.
28. The reliance placed upon Deepak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(supra) does not advance the case of the petitioner.
There is no dispute with the proposition that mere registration of multiple cases, without more, cannot justify an order of externment and that there must exist objective material bearing a nexus with the subjective satisfaction of the authority. In the present case, however, the impugned order is supported not merely by the antecedent cases but also by the statements of independent witnesses recorded in camera and the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority regarding the effect of the petitioner's activities upon the community.
29.
Similarly, Vijay Kumar Rajpoot @ Vijju (supra) rests materially on denial of the statutory requirement of notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The factual position herein is distinguishable. The petitioner was served with notice under Section 50 of the DP Act; she appeared before the competent authority; the contents thereof were explained to her in Hindi; her statement was recorded; and she was afforded an opportunity to file a reply, produce defence witnesses and engage a counsel.
She was specifically informed that she could approach the Delhi Legal Services Authority for free legal assistance. The record, therefore, does not support the contention that the proceedings were conducted without affording her an opportunity of hearing.
30. The fact that the petitioner ultimately remained unrepresented cannot, in the facts of the present case, by itself vitiate the proceedings when the record demonstrates that she was informed of the availability of legal aid and afforded opportunity to avail the same.
The plea of violation of the principlesThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 11 of 12 of natural justice, therefore, cannot be accepted.
31. The subsequent registration of FIR No. 173/2026 and its reference during the proceedings has also been considered.
The petitioner was present before the competent authority on 22.05.2026 when the prosecution witnesses were examined. More importantly, the said FIR was not the sole or foundational material for initiation of the proceedings. The proceedings had commenced on 20.02.2026 on the basis of the material already disclosed in the notice. In these circumstances, consideration of the subsequent case, along with the pre-existing material, does not persuade this Court to hold that the entire proceedings stand vitiated.
32.
The appellate order dated 29.07.2026 also reflects consideration of the principal objections raised by the petitioner, including absence of legal representation, pendency of the criminal cases and the nature of the offences. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor noted the opportunities afforded during the proceedings and the material considered by the competent authority before declining to interfere with the externment order.
33.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the impugned orders are founded upon relevant material and that the statutory authorities have recorded the requisite satisfaction upon consideration thereof. No perversity, manifest arbitrariness or violation of the statutory procedure warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
35. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to examination of the legality of the impugned orders and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of any criminal case pending against theThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56 W.P.(CRL) 2402/2026 Page 12 of 12 petitioner.
36. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/b/PThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2026 at 01:49:56