Home  /  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  /  Section 10

Section 10: Removal of person likely to commit offence

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1989
Section 9 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 11

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 10

Section 10 enacts an extraordinary preventive remedy authorizing the Special Court to order the externment and physical removal of habitual offenders or persons likely to commit atrocities from Scheduled Areas, tribal areas, or identified atrocity-prone zones for a period of up to three years.

  • Grounds for Externment & Jurisdictional Triggers (Section 10(1)): The Special Court must be satisfied, upon a formal complaint or a police report, that a person is likely to commit an offence under Chapter II in any area included in 'Scheduled Areas' (Fifth Schedule), 'tribal areas' (Sixth Schedule), or any atrocity-prone area identified under Section 21(2)(vii).
  • Written Order, Specified Route & Maximum Duration: The Special Court issues a written order directing the person to remove himself beyond the territorial limits of the specified area by a designated route, within a specified time, and not to return for a period not exceeding three years.
  • Communication of Grounds & Natural Justice Safeguards (Section 10(2)-(3)): The Special Court must communicate the specific grounds of the order to the affected person. The externed individual has the statutory right to submit a representation within 30 days of receiving the grounds, upon which the Special Court may revoke or modify the order for recorded reasons.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Hari Khemu Gawali v. Deputy Commissioner of Police AIR 1956 SC 559: A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld preventive externment laws as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) of the Constitution, provided the affected person is given the grounds of externment and a meaningful opportunity to make a representation.
  • Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police (1973) 1 SCC 372: The Supreme Court held that while the disclosure of confidential sources or names of witnesses is not required in externment proceedings to protect them from caste retribution, the substance of the prejudicial allegations must be clearly communicated.
  • Deepak v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99: The Supreme Court emphasized that externment is an exceptional preventive measure severely curtailing personal liberty under Article 19(1)(d). It cannot be passed routinely on stale FIRs or without tangible material establishing an ongoing propensity to commit crimes.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

To challenge a Section 10 externment order under Article 226 / 227 or Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, establish: (1) that the area is not a legally designated Scheduled Area, tribal area, or officially identified atrocity-prone area under Section 21(2)(vii); (2) that the grounds provided were vague, generic, or devoid of specific material facts; or (3) that the Special Court failed to adjudicate the 30-day representation with recorded reasons under Section 10(3).

Section 9 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 11