The court clarifies the distinction between externment and detention under the KAA(P) Act, holding the former imposes lesser deprivation, and considers the reasonableness of the order in light of the petitioner's legal rights.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 externment order dated 08.08.2025, 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 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 that, on 18.07.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City 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, 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 four cases in which the petitioner got involved for passing Ext.P2 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.328/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 , 296(b), 115(2), 351(3), 329(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri. Athira Suresh, 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.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, 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 live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of externment is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment order as contended by the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted in the said order.

7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after taking into account the petitioner’s involvement in criminal activities that the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, has mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Altogether, four cases formed the basis for passing the impugned order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.328/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 , 296(b), 115(2), 351(3), 329(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS . The alleged incident constituting the last prejudicial activity occurred on 15.03.2025. The offences alleged in the said case were bailable. However, in the penultimate case, the detenu was arrested on 18.03.2025, and he was released on bail