The externment order under the KAA(P) Act is valid if procedural compliance is established and no unreasonable delay is found.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 externment order dated 28.11.2025 passed against the petitioner underSection 15(1)(a) of theKerala 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 Revenue District Thirssur for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order. However, as per the order of the Advisory Board dated 14.01.2026, the period of externment was reduced to five months, and thereafter the petitioner was directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Mannuthy Police Station, on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. for another two months.

2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities on 03.11.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur 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 seven 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.742/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 127 (1), 115(2), 329, 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri. Jerry Mathew, 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.P1 order 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. On the said premise, it was urged that Ext.P1 externment order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 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 no unreasonable delay 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 Government Pleader, the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P1 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 Ext.P1 order of externment is crime No.742/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 127 (1), 115(2), 329, 296(b) r/w 3(5) of BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 19.07.2025, and he was released on bail on the same day, as the offences alleged in the said case are bailable. It was on 03.11.2025, while the petitioner was on bail, that the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P)A