Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ
JAFAR ALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 618 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SMT.ABHIRAMI S., SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M., SHRI.PRASEED V.P.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court affirmed that minimal procedural delay does not invalidate an externment order under the KAA(P) Act, especially when prior proceedings under BNSS do not sufficiently address recurrent criminal behavior.
Headnote:This writ petition scrutinizes Ext.P3 order against the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, interdicting him from entering Malappuram. The District Police Chief's proposal categorized the petitioner as a 'known goonda.' The court determined that the impugned order adhered to procedural requirements and that delays were justifiable, concluding that prior proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS did not preclude the externment. The emphasized judicial assessment highlights that the authority's decision was robustly justified in light of recurrent criminal activities. The questions framed include whether there was improper consideration of facts and if earlier proceedings were sufficient to prevent the petitioner’s criminal conduct. The court established that the authority's decision was appropriately grounded, affirming that minimal delays do not vitiate the externment order under Section 15. Evaluating the criteria for externment against the backdrop of fundamental rights illumination, the court reasoned that the magnitude of the order had lesser implications compared to detention, maintaining significant procedural fidelity. The court concluded that, after thorough review, the petitioner did not present a valid basis for interference. The ruling upholds the externment order within its legal framework.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the implications of being labeled a 'known goonda' under kaa(p) act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal arguments raised by both parties concerning the externment order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. response of the court regarding procedural justice and delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's observation about the necessity and justification of externment orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final conclusion on the dismissal of the petition. (Para 13) |
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 15 (1) 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 the Revenue District Malappuram for six months 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) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known goonda”
as defined under Section 2 (o) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The last case considered for passing the impugned order of externment is crime No.43/2025 of Karipoor Police Station registered, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act.
4. Heard Sri. Navaneeth N.Nath, 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 the Ext.P3 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is inordinate delay in passing the impugned order and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment is snapped. The learned counsel further submits that the jurisdictional authority should have considered the fact that already proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 126 of BNSS and the said proceedings would certainly be sufficient to prevent the petitioner from involving in criminal activities. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence 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 no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is warranted.
7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P3 order of externment is Crime No.43/2025 of Karipoor Police Station registered, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 17.01.2025, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail on the same day. It was on 14.03.2025, that the District Police Chief, Malappuram, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under K
