Kerala High Court
Sajan T vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22248 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAJAN T
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O THANKACHAN, MANAKATTUVILAKAM,
NEHRU JUNCTION, KAZHAKOOTTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695022
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME (SSA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
2
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND POLICE COMMISSIONER,
CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,
PIN - 695043
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
ADV. ANAS K A, GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
3
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The instant Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order dated 20.02.2025
issued by respondent No. 2, invoking powers under Section 15(1)(b) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAP Act' for brevity). By the
aforesaid order, the petitioner herein has been directed to appear before the
Cyber City Assistant Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, on every Monday
and Thursday between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for a period of 6 months from
the date of execution of the order.
2. A perusal of the records would reveal that it is on account of his
involvement in four crimes that the externee was classified as a 'known rowdy'
and the externment order was passed.
3. Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/externee, submitted that Ext. P1 order cannot be sustained under the
law. He would point out that in the case at hand, a show cause notice proposing
initiation of proceedings under Section 15 of the KAAP Act was issued on
06.02.2025, calling upon the externee to appear on 13.02.2025. The externee
had appeared and had filed detailed objections. Consequent to the same, the
impugned order was passed on 20.02.2025. He would urge that an earlier order
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
of detention was issued under Section 3 of the KAAP Act, which was challenged
before this Court and by judgment dated 04.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 40426 of
2024, the detention order was set aside. It is further submitted that a perusal of
the externment order would reveal that, except for the case number of the crimes
in which the externee got involved, the order is silent with regard to the relevant
facts, which ought to have been reckoned by the authority while passing the
order.
4. Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the
submissions.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and
have carefully perused the entire record.
6. On a careful consideration of the impugned order of externment, we
find that it lacks even the bare minimum particulars of the criminal cases in which
the externee is allegedly involved. The order is conspicuously silent on vital details
such as the date and number of registration of the alleged crimes, the specific
role attributed to the externee in those offences, the dates of his release on bail,
and the conditions, if any, imposed by the jurisdictional courts. Even the date of
commission of the last prejudicial act has not been disclosed. In the absence of
such foundational facts, it becomes impossible to assess whether a live and
proximate link exists between the purported prejudicial activities and the issuance
of the externment order. The potential impact of the externee's alleged conduct
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
on the maintenance of public order and tranquillity has also not been examined or
addressed by respondent No. 2.
7. When invoking the extraordinary power of externment under the
KAAP Act, it is imperative to ensure that the constitutional rights of the individual
are not infringed. The procedural safeguards enshrined in the statute must be
scrupulously observed, as they are intended to ensure that the exercise of such
power is not whimsical or arbitrary. The authority initiating action under Section
15 of the KAAP Act must record its satisfaction based on tangible and credible
material, and it must be evident that such satisfaction is arrived at after due and
independent application of mind.
8. It is essential that the authority evaluates the antecedents of the
externee, his propensity to engage in activities prejudicial to public order, the
gravity of past misconduct, and the likelihood of recurrence of such activities in
the area from which he is proposed to be externed. It is with this salutary
objective that the statute mandates compliance with the principles of natural
justice, so that the externee is afforded a meaningful opportunity to present his
case and dissuade the authority from resorting to the drastic measure of
externment.
9. An order of externment must thus reflect a conscious, objective, and
reasoned consideration of the relevant facts, materials, and circumstances,
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
culminating in the requisite satisfaction of the authority. A perusal of the
impugned order discloses that respondent No. 2 failed to undertake such an
exercise. In light of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the
impugned order is legally unsustainable and warrants interference.
10. We cannot but take serious note of the casual and callous manner in
which jurisdiction has been exercised in the present case. Such an approach
undermines the purpose and effectiveness of the statute itself. We, therefore,
direct respondent No. 2 to act with greater care, circumspection and responsibility
in the future, so that such unwarranted incursions into personal liberty are
avoided.
Resultantly, this Writ Petition will stand allowed. Ext.P1 externment order
dated 20.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 is quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
APM
W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2025 2025:KER:48620
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22248/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
06/KAAPA/CP/2024/TC DATED 20.02.2025 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
