Kerala High Court
Namjit vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:67612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32114 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NAMJIT
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O BALAN, PAZHAVELIKAKATHU HOUSE, NARAYANA
MANGALAM, PULLUT, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680663
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 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:67612
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment
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 Thrissur 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, Thirssur 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, 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 four cases in which the
petitioner was involved while passing the order of externment. Out
of the said four cases, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.964/2025 of Kodungallur Police
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:67612
Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, 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, though the petitioner was released on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity on stringent
conditions, the said fact is not adverted to in the impugned order,
and the sufficiency of bail conditions was also not considered by
the jurisdictional authority while passing the order. The learned
counsel further urged that in the impugned order, the jurisdictional
authority has not assigned any reason for passing the maximum
period of externment. According to the counsel, when the
maximum period of externment was ordered, it was incumbent
upon the jurisdiction authority to assign special reasons for passing
such an order. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned
order of externment is liable to be set aside.
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:67612
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, the sufficiency of the bail conditions
imposed by the court while granting bail to the externee in the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity was duly
considered by the jurisdictional authority, and it was after being
satisfied that those conditions are not sufficient to restrain the
externee from repeating criminal activities, the externment order
was passed. It was further submitted that all the procedural
safeguards were complied with while passing the order of
externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is
warranted.
7. While considering the rival contentions, it is to be
noted that the case registered against the petitioner with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.964/2025 of Kodungallur
Police Station, registered, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of
BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 17.05.2025.
The records further reveal that the petitioner was arrested in that
case on 22.05.2025 and released on bail on 03.06.2025. It was on
24.06.2025, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:67612
KAA(P) Act was mooted by the sponsoring authority. Later the the
impugned order was passed on 11.07.2025. The sequence of the
events narrated above clearly indicates that there is no undue
delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment
order.
8. Undisputedly, Ext.P1 order of externment was passed
while the petitioner was on bail in the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, while passing the order, it
was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to take note of the
fact that the petitioner was on bail in the said case and also to
consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him by
the court while granting bail to him. When an effective and
alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating
criminal activities, resorting to an externment order is neither
warranted nor permissible. Therefore, when the petitioner is on
bail, it was imperative for the jurisdictional authority to consider
whether there exists any bail condition that would suffice to deter
the petitioner from engaging in criminal activities further.
9. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in
the present case, it can be seen that the impugned order, the fact
that the petitioner was released on bail in the last case registered
against him is specifically adverted to. In the impugned order, it is
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:67612
clearly mentioned that all the proceedings already initiated against
the petitioner under ordinary criminal law did not yield any result,
and the petitioner is involving in criminal activities again,
disregarding the bail conditions imposed in the earlier cases. A
holistic reading of the impugned order further reveals that the act
of the petitioner violating the bail conditions and being involved in
criminal activities is one of the materials which the jurisdictional
authority relied on to enter into a subjective satisfaction to pass the
externment order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
jurisdictional authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail
conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time of passing the
impugned order. The impugned order reveals that the antecedents
of the petitioner and his propensity to be involved in criminal
activities, disregarding the earlier bail orders, persuaded the
jurisdictional authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction
regarding the necessity of passing the externment order.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the above regard will fail.
10. The main dispute that revolves around 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
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:67612
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 that passed an order of
externment is too limited. However, an order of externment
certainly has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as
fundamental rights of an individual. Such an order would certainly
deprive a citizen concerned of his fundamental right 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 properly, 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. In short, the
jurisdictional authority shall exercise its power cautiously, though
the authority is clothed with the power to order a maximum period
of externment, subject to the restriction that it shall not be more
than one year.
11. The 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:
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:67612
"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, 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."
12. 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, 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
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:67612
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 to the extent that the writ petitioner shall be
interdicted from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District,
for a period of six months from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 order.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(C) No.32114 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:67612
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32114/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-
13147/2025/TSR DATED 11.07.2025 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
