Kerala High Court
Prabhuraj vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:60126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 902 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PRABHURAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O PRABHADAS,
GILGAL HOUSE, PERILA, UZHAMANKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695567
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.VINOD
SHRI.SUHAIL M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADVISORY BOARD UNDER THE K.A.A.P.A ACT
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN K.A.A.P.A,
SRINIVAS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, PADAM ROAD,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682026
WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:60126
3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:60126
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 29.11.2024 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 Thiruvananthapuram 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, the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram 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 authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram 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 six cases in which the petitioner got involved while passing the order of externment. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:60126 activity is crime No.524/2024 of Valiyamala Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296B, 115(2), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, 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, the jurisdictional authority passed an order of externment for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel urged that when the maximum period of externment was ordered, it was incumbent upon the authority to show the reasons for the same. However, no convincing reason has been assigned by the authority for imposing the maximum period of externment, and hence, the impugned order warrants interference.
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 nothing wrong in passing an order of externment for one year if the circumstances warrant it, and WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:60126 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, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of the six cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.524/2024 of Valiyamala Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296B, 115(2), 351(2)of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 05.08.2024 and the same was reported on 07.08.2024. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 09.08.2024 and was released on bail on the same day. It was on 14.10.2024, the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on 29.11.2024, the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order. A perusal of the records reveals that the impugned order was passed after scrupulously complying with all the procedural safeguards provided under the KAA(P) Act.
8. The main dispute in this writ petition is with respect to the period of externment ordered by the jurisdictional authority. As already stated, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, it was without assigning any reason, the maximum period of externment was ordered. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that the scope of interference by a court of law in the subjective as well as objective satisfaction arrived on by the jurisdictional authority which WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:60126 passed an order of externment is very limited. However, an order of externment certainly has a heavy bearing on the fundamental rights of an individual. Such an order would certainly deprive a citizen concerned of his fundamental freedom of free movement throughout the territory of India. By such an order, he is prevented from entering his house and from residing with his family members during the subsistence of the order as well. Therefore, while prescribing the maximum period of externment, the jurisdictional authority must apply its mind to the said aspect, and the order must reflect the necessity of passing the maximum period of externment. In other words, the order should provide reasons for invoking the maximum period of externment.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2023) 14 SCC 707], while dealing with a preventive detention order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 held that:
"On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts, in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of the objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record it subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:60126 the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December, 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India."
10. Moreover, this Court in Dinchu Mohanan v. State of Kerala and another [2015 (2) KHC 101] held that the court is empowered to annul, amend, or confirm the order of externment passed under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act. Keeping in mind the above propositions of law, while coming to the impugned order, it can be seen that nowhere in the said order, are the reasons for imposing the maximum period of externment adverted to. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order requires modification regarding the duration of the period of externment.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and Ext. P1 order is modified, and the period of externment in Ext.P1 order shall WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:60126 be confined to the period of externment already undergone by the petitioner.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.902/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:60126
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 902/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SERVED ON THE
PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE ALONG WITH
TYPEWRITTEN COPY
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO 524/2024 OF
VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION DATED
07.08.2024