Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ.
Suhail V.M., S/o. Abdul Majeed V.M. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 11405 of 2025
Decided on : 04-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.M.R.DHANIL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH, SMT.SENITTA P. JOJO, SMT.VIDHUNA NARAYANAN
For the Respondent: Adv. Sri. K.A. ANAS, Government Pleader
A person subject to an externment order has the right to justification for the duration imposed; failure to provide reasons for maximum periods is unconstitutional.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 15(1)(a) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Order of externment issued with the petitioner classified as a 'known goonda' due to recurrent criminal activities; maximum period of externment imposed without adequate justification. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) Legal Principles on Externment - Orders affecting fundamental rights must demonstrate clear application of mind and reasons for maximum periods prescribed. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the externment order preventing him from entering Malappuram District for one year, citing lack of reasoning for the maximum duration.
Findings of Court:
The requirement for detailed justification is essential to support the maximum period of externment.
Issues: Legal standards for issuing externment orders and the necessity for specific reasoning when imposing maximum durations.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must ensure that orders affecting fundamental rights include substantive reasons for their duration, particularly when a maximum period is specified.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; externment modified to six months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of externment order and its background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's commentary on the application of subjective satisfaction in externment cases. (Para 4) |
| 3. parties' arguments on the validity of externment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis of procedural safeguards. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. requirements for imposing maximum externment period. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 29.10.2024 passed against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. By the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of Malappuram Revenue District for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, the District Police Chief, Malappuram submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2 (o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered two cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1249/2023 of Meenangadi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.
4. Heard Sri. M.R. Dhanil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, Ext.P1 order was passed in a casual manner, and it was without assigning any reason, the jurisdictional authority passed an order of externment for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel urged that when the maximum period of externment was ordered, it was incumbent upon the authority to show the reasons for the same. Nevertheless, no convincing reason whatsoever has been assigned by the authority for passing the maximum period of externment, and hence, the impugned order warrants interference.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is nothing wrong in passing an order of externment for one year if the circumstances warrant it, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after considering the involvement of the petitioner in two cases registered under NDPS Act, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of the two cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1249/2023 of Meenangadi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22 (b) of the NDPS Act. In the said case, the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed with intermediate quantity of methamphetamine on 29.11.2023. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 01.01.2024. It was on 08.10.2024, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on 16.10.2024, the jurisdictional authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon
