Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, G.GIRISH, JJ.
Jayaprakash @ Criminal Jayan, S/o Kochu Nanu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 884 of 2024
Decided on : 09-09-2024
Externment - KAAP Act - Section 15 - The court emphasized the necessity of a timely connection between the last prejudicial act and the externment order, highlighting that undue delay undermines the authority's subjective satisfaction and the order's validity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order issued under the KAAP Act, which restricted his entry into Kottayam District for nine months due to his classification as a 'known rowdy' based on his involvement in multiple crimes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in issuing the externment order was inordinate and unexplained, which cast doubt on the authority's subjective satisfaction and the justification for the order.
Issues: Whether the delay in passing the externment order undermines its validity and whether the authority's subjective satisfaction was properly established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a significant delay between the last prejudicial act and the externment order raises questions about the genuineness of the authority's satisfaction and the necessity of the order.
Result: The court set aside the externment order due to inordinate and unexplained delay.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P1 order dated 22.04.2024, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range invoking Section 15 (1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short ‘KAAP Act’). As per the said order, the petitioner has been interdicted from entering into the jurisdictional limits of the District Police Chief, Kottayam for a period of nine months. The Advisory Board, before which the petitioner mounted a challenge against Ext.P1 order, proceeded to reduce the period of externment to seven months by Ext.P2 order. The said order is also under challenge in this petition.
2. On account of the involvement of the petitioner in four crimes registered within the limits of various Police Stations of Kottayam District, the respondents arrived at the objective satisfaction that the petitioner satisfied the parameters of being classified as a ‘known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAP Act. The last prejudicial activity committed by the petitioner was Crime No.1530 of 2023, registered at the Mundakayam Police Station on 20.11.2023 for offences inter alia under Sections 294(b), 341, 308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said crime on 21.11.2023, and he was released on bail on 06.01.2024. After his release, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief on 14.03.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 15(1) of the KAAP Act. On receipt of the proposal, the authority concerned issued notice on 21.03.2024 in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act, calling upon the proposed externee to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him. On receipt of the reply dated 08.04.2024 submitted by the petitioner, he was granted an opportunity to raise his objections for which he was directed to appear before the authority concerned on 18.04.2024. The explanation offered by him was rejected and the impugned order was passed restricting his entry into Kottayam District. Challenging the said order, the externee submitted a representation before the Advisory Board. The Board, after evaluating the contentions, came to the conclusion that the order passed is in strict conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act. However, considering the family background of the externee, the period of the externment was reduced to seven months.
3. Ms. Anakha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that undue delay in passing the externment order would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay. She urged that if the delay is inordinate, it would cast serious doubt on the subjective satisfaction of the authority in issuing the order. Referring to the chronology of events in this case, the learned counsel pointed out that the last prejudicial act was committed on 20.11.2023, the proposal for externment was only submitted on 14.03.2024—nearly three months and twenty days later—and the order itself was passed even later, on 22.04.2024, approximately five months after the prejudicial act. According to the learned counsel, prompt action is insisted to maintain the live connection between the last prejudicial act and the order of externment as otherwise, the individual concerned shall continue to perpetrate his anti-social activities and pose a threat to public safety. To support her contentions, profuse reliance was placed on the observations and the law laid down in Aji V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., [2023: KER: 36761]
4. In response, Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an order of externment under Section 15 of the KAAP Act is lighter in its impact on the personal liberty of a person and its effect is only in the nature of a condition attached to a bail order. Reliance is placed on the observation in Stalin alias Satalin Samuvel v. State, Represented by the Inspector Police, [2023 K
Timely action is essential in externment proceedings to maintain a live link between the last prejudicial act and the order, ensuring the authority's satisfaction is justified.
Unreasonable delay in externment proceedings can sever the connection to criminal activities and warrant modification of the order.
Delay in ordering externment disrupts the necessary connection with prior criminal activities, leading to the order's cancellation.
The court affirmed that the delay in issuing an externment order under the KAA(P) Act was not excessive and that such orders can coexist with ongoing proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
Delay in initiating externment proceedings severed the connection with the last prejudicial activity, justifying the order's annulment.
The court upheld the externment order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural requirements were met and the authority's satisfaction regarding bail conditions was sufficient.
A jurisdictional authority must consider bail conditions before issuing an externment order under the relevant statute.
The delay in issuing an externment order without justification severed necessary connections with the alleged prejudicial activities, necessitating the order's annulment.
The Court emphasized that externment orders must provide clear justifications and reasons for their duration to uphold individual rights.
The court upheld the externment order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural compliance and objective satisfaction were met despite the petitioner's bail status.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
