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
