The Court emphasized that externment orders must provide clear justifications and reasons for their duration to uphold individual rights.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 05.07.2025 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 Malappuram 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, Malappuram, on 13.06.2025, 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 goonda” as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered four cases in which the petitioner got involved in 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.208/2025 of Tirurangadi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri. Abdul Hadi M.P., 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 a period of 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 four 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.208/2025 of Tirurangadi Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 03.03.2025. It was on 13.06.2025, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 23.06.2025, 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