Externment orders must include justifiable reasons for the duration imposed, or else risk being altered.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 22.03.2025 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 Thrissur 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, Thrissur Rural, on 18.02.2025 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, Thirssur Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner got himself involved while passing the order of externment. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.118/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 309(6), 351(3), 61(2), 103(1) 238(a), r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

4. Heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, 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 three cases registered against him, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.118/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 309(6), 351(3), 61(2), 103(1) 238(a), r/w 190 of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 23.09.2024. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 26.09.2024 and subsequently, he was released on bail on 27.01.2025. It was on 18.02.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, mooted th