Procedural safeguards must be adhered to in externment proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, distinguishing them from detention orders.

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 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 has been interdicted from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District for a period of 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, on 23.08.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range.

3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner got involved for passing the externment order. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.284/2025 of Erumeli Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333, 351(3), 296(b), r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”), and the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

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 the Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The learned counsel urged that there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment order, and the said delay would certainly snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order. On these premises, it was contended that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

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. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment order as contented by the petitioner. 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. As evident from the records, this is the 2nd externment order passed against the petitioner. After the period of externment mentioned in the first externment order, the petitioner again got involved in three other criminal cases, which necessitated the passing of the present externment order. Out of the said three cases considered for passing the present externment order, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity and considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 order of externment is crime No.284/2025 of Erumeli Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333, 351(3), 296(b), r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The incident that led to the registration of the said case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 04.04.2025. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 05.04.2025 and subsequently released on bail on 09.04.2025. The District Police Chief, Thrissur City, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner on 23.08.2025. Subsequently, the externment order was passed on 17.09.2025. The sequence of the events narra