The court upheld the requirement of compliance with procedural formalities in externment orders under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, emphasizing the distinction between externment and 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 an order of externment dated 13.08.2025 passed against the petitioner under Section 15 (1) 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 the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural 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 25.06.2026, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner underSection 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner has been 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 the externment order dated 13.08.2025. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.814/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable underSections 126(2), and 115(2) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath, 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 externment order dated 13.08.2025 was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the impugned order, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the impugned order was passed on improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. 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 there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned order, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining authority passed the externment order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted in the said order.

7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the last prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the externment order is crime No.814/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2) and 115(2) of BNS . The incident which led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 07.05.2025, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2025 and released on bail on the same day, as the offences alleged in the said case are bailable.

Thereafter, it was on 25.06.2025, that the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Later, it was on 13.08.2025, that the externment order was passed.

8. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there is no unreasonable delay ei