OSTRACISM

EXILE AND BANISHMENT

RAJAS SALPEKAR
UG 19-84
Introduction
Ostracism - political practice in ancient Athens whereby a prominent citizen who threatened the
stability of the state could be banished without bringing any charge against him.

Exile – “the state of being sent to live in another country that is not your own, especially for
political reasons or as a punishment” (Oxford Learners Dictionary).

Banishment - “A punishment inflicted upon criminals, by compelling them to quit a city, place, or
country for a specified period of time, or for life”.
Black’s Law Dictionary
 History & Process of Ostracism
 the origination of ‘ostracism’ is attributed to Kleisthenics, at the end of 6 th Century BCE.
 Cleisthenes introduced Ostracism as a political measure to safeguard Athens and its newly formed democracy from
potential tyrants.
 Since it was difficult to prove in court that an individual posed a threat, Cleisthenes implemented a different
approach: if a certain percentage of people believed someone posed a risk, they could be banished through Ostracism
-----------------------------------------------------
• Ekklesia, Boule and Dikasteria (Voting rights for men above 20 allowed to vote).
• Vote in Ekklesia if there needs to be an ‘ostracophoria’ – show of hands – counting by proedroi – 20%
quorum.
• An exclusive gathering called ‘ostracophoria’ was convened and was convened in an agora (open space) in Athens in
the 8th unit of the 10 units of an year – anonymous voting via ostracons.
Ostracons from Athenian Agora
 Banishment
 Although the meaning of each term varies and exile is usually used for both of these m punishments,
banishment is the exclusion or expulsion of an individual from a specific territory, while exile is a particular kind
of banishment in which the place of exile is specified. Criminals are banished instead of being exiled from their
home country.

 History of Banishment –

Banishment as self-exile was a common alternative to the death penalty in ancient Athens, as in Athens ; After his
first speech in the in a murder trial, the murderer(defendant) was given the chance to leave the city on his own.

But in Rome, relegatio followed - In Roman law, the banishment of a citizen from Rome and his native province,
either for a fixed period or indefinitely, as punishment for the commission of a serious crime. Although the citizen
retained Roman citizenship and property rights, return prior to the lifting of the relegatio would result in capital
punishment
 the account of Agrippinus’s banishment in 66AD is described as follows:
“When told he had been condemned, he inquired, ‘To exile or death?’ ‘To exile’, was the reply.
‘What about my property?’, he asked. When he learned that it had not been confiscated, his words
were, ‘Well then, let us go to Aricia and take our lunch there’

 No loss of property – only citizenship rights

 Exile
 ‘Accra’, in which the Turks exiled the popular Iranian religious leader Baha Allah in 1868, or it could be a small
island such as St. Helena, in which the British exiled Napoleon in 1815.
 Exile was also practiced as a form of punishment in India till 1955. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code
included ‘transportation for life’ as a type of punishment but the same was excluded in the year 1955 with
passing of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955. Subsequently, there was also an addition of Section
53A which stipulated that in any section of the Indian Penal Code or in any other law for the time being in force,
any reference to the term ‘transportation for life’, shall be construed as ‘imprisonment for life’. Further section
53A(4) clarified –
“(4) Any reference to “transportation” in any other law for the time being in force shall -
(a) if the expression means transportation for life, be construed as a reference to imprisonment for life;

(b) if the expression means transportation for any shorter term, be deemed to have been omitted.”
Exiles adopted by British
 Some of the famous exiles carried out by
the British were of Wajid Ali Shah – the
ousted king of Awadh, who was held
captive in Calcutta from 1856 to 1859;

the last of Mughals to have ruled on Delhi

– Sultan Bahadur Shah was exiled to
Rangoon to prevent another rebellion like
the sepoy mutiny of 1857;

The Nawab of Farrukhabad was sent to

Aden in 1859 & the members of the
Manipuri Royal family were sent to
Andamans in the aftermath of the Anglo-
Manipuri war
 Case Law
 Mangyang Lima v. State of Nagaland & Ors. [2019 SCC ONLINE GAU 3494].
-- the order of village council which had ‘banished’ & ‘excommunicated’ him from his own village for 11
years while also penalizing some villagers for supporting the petitioner.

-- It had so happened that the petitioner had decided to contest elections from his village’s constituency but
the village council on its own decided one member and declared him as the sole contender of the
constituency. However, considering it as his legal right, the petitioner still sought to contest the elections.
Since Mr. Meyimangyang (alias Mangyang Lima), Son of late Limakumzuk has breached the solemn resolution of
the Chuchuyimlang Senso Mungdang [(CSM)/Chuchuyimlang Citizen's Forum] made in the name of God to live
in unity and dignity, the CSM and the Riongsanger Putu Menden of Chuchuyimlang has resolved as follows:
1. Since Mr. Meyimangyang has given several hardships to the citizens of Chuchuyimlang village during his
breach of CSM resolution, the breached the CSM resolution, he will not be allowed to take part in any social set-
up under CSM and no recommendations will be provided to him for eleven years beginning from 1st February,
2018 to 31st January, 2030.
2. Since Mr. Meyimangyang has given several hardships to the citizens of Chuchuyimlang village during his
breach of CSM resolution, the Riongsanger Putu Menden has resolved not to allow him to enter into
Chuchuyimlang area for eleven years.
3. During these eleven years of social boycott, no one or group is permitted to entertain him as one of the
citizens of Chuchuyimlang. The CSM and the Riongsanger Putu Menden will not be held responsible if any
untoward incident happens to him while any person or group entertains him in his individual capacity.”
HC relied on case of Bihar v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1968 1 SCR 313].
“18.… A custom is a usage by virtue of which a class of persons belonging to a defined section in a locality
are entitled to exercise specific rights against certain other persons or property in the same locality. To the
extent to which it is inconsistent with the general law, undoubtedly the custom prevails. But to be valid, a
custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable, and being in derogation of the general rules of law must be
construed strictly.”

HC held that the practice of banishment and exile came to be frowned upon as derogatory to human rights in
most of the societies and has been stopped in the post-colonial world in most of the societies. Further, the
Hon’ble High Court also opined that with the advancements of modern democratic societies many old beliefs
and traditions have turned incompatible and anachronistic & also that the UDHR in Article 9 opines that “no
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.
THANK YOU