Modification of externment duration due to procedural considerations and impact on personal rights.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 externment order dated 16.08.2025, 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 Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order. However, the Advisory Board, constituted under the KAA(P) Act, vide its order dated 24.09.2025, modified the said order, and the period of externment was reduced from one year to six months.

2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities that, on 21.06.2025, the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural had 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, Thiruvananthapuram 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 eighteen cases in which the petitioner got involved for passing Ext.P3 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.287/2025 of Maranallor Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 115(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri.V.Vinay, 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.P3 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, the petitioner was earlier an informant of the police and had reported several criminal activities to the police. While so, one of the accused in a case registered based on the information given by the petitioner was manhandled by the police, and the petitioner resisted it. Thereafter, the police were in enimical terms with the petitioner. Hence, to wreak vengeance, the SHO, Maranallor, had forwarded a report seeking initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner, and the same ultimately resulted in passing Ext. P3 externment order. According to the learned counsel, out of the eighteen cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the incident that led to the registration of the fifteen cases occurred on the same day as well as in the course of the same transaction, and those cases were falsely crooked up against him. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint regarding the illegal activities of the SHO, Maranallor, and that this complaint fueled the police’s animosity towards him. It is contended that the impugned externment order is a counterblast to the private complaint filed by the petitioner. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P3 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. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is nothing to interfere with the externment order passed against