Delay in ordering externment disrupts the necessary connection with prior criminal activities, leading to the order's cancellation.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of externment dated 31.12.2025 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 has been interdicted from entering the limits of the District Police Chief, Kottayam, for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, the said order of externment under (1)(a) was modified by the KAA(P) Act Advisory Board and the period of externment was reduced to three months from the date of the service of the impugned order and it is further directed that after the expiry of the period of three months of externment, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Manimala Police Station, on every Saturdays, between 10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for the remaining period of three months.

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, Kottayam, submitted a proposal on 29.10.2025 for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. The authority considered six cases in which the petitioner got involved while passing the externment order. The last case registered against the petitioner and considered by the authority for passing the externment order is crime No.694/2025 of Manimala Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

4. Heard Smt.Helan Paul, 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.P2 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 and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order is snapped. On the said premise, it was urged that the externment order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader 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 Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment 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.

7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities that the District Police Chief, Kottayam, has mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Altogether, six 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.694/2025 of Manimala Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of BNS.

8. The above-mentioned last prejudicial activity was commit