Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ
SHYAM PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1779 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.M.H.HANIS, SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR, SMT.NANCY MOL P., SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH, SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J., SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Authorities must provide justified reasons when imposing maximum externment periods to protect fundamental rights.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the validity of an externment order under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The petitioner contested the order, asserting that it lacked proper justification. The court reinforced the necessity for authorities to provide clear reasons when imposing the maximum period of externment. It ruled that the impugned order required modification as proper reasoning was absent. The key issues revolved around the justification for the externment duration and whether proper procedure was followed. The court emphasized that the discretion of authorities must be exercised judiciously, particularly given the severe implications on individual rights associated with externment orders. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part, modifying the externment order to six months, reflecting the court's view on procedural propriety.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of externment order under kaa(p) act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the externment order necessity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's limited scope of interference in subjective satisfaction. (Para 8) |
| 4. need for justification in externment orders. (Para 10) |
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 05.06.2025 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 Palakkad 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, that the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 17.04.2025, 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, Thrissur 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 eight cases in which the petitioner got involved for passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.763/2024 of Kottayi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 51 (2), 296(b) r/w 3(5) 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 that the jurisdictional authority passed an order of externment for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel further 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 Public Prosecutor 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 Public Prosecutor, there is nothing wrong in passing an externment order 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 eight cases registered against him that the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of the said cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.763/2024 of Kottayi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 51 (2), 296(b) r/w 3(5) of BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 28.12.2024. It was on 17.04.2025, the District Police Chief, Palakkad, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 12.05.2025, the jurisdictional authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be passed against him. Moreover, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.05.2025 to appear befor
