KAAPA | Kerala High Court Quashes Externment Order Saying Delay Of Six Months In Digitised Police System Snaps Live Link With Last Prejudicial Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar allowed a writ petition challenging an externment order passed under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The Court held that the delay in initiating and executing the externment order severed the necessary causal link with the alleged prejudicial activities and thereby rendered the action legally unsustainable. The final direction quashed the externment order issued by the police authorities, citing lack of proximity between the petitioner’s last alleged criminal act and the preventive measure taken.
The petitioner, aged 44, resident of Thrissur District, challenged an externment order issued against him by invoking Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The order, dated 09.05.2025 and issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Thrissur Range), prohibited the petitioner from entering the territorial limits of Thrissur Revenue District for six months.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates C. Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, and Libin Varghese. The respondents included the State of Kerala, its Home Department officials, and law enforcement authorities from Thrissur, represented by Public Prosecutor Adv. K.A. Anas.
The facts revealed that the District Police Chief (Thrissur) submitted a report requesting initiation of proceedings under Section 15 of KAAPA, citing the petitioner's involvement in four criminal cases registered within various police stations in Thrissur.
The cases referred to were:
(a) Crime No. 175/2019 (Chavakkad Police Station): Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner was the 1st accused.
(b) Crime No. 548/2023 (Guruvayur Temple Police Station): Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner was the 1st accused.
(c) Crime No. 1111/2023 (Kunnamkulam Police Station): Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrayed as the 3rd accused.
(d) Crime No. 1433/2024 (Kunnamkulam Police Station): Sections 126(2), 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner was the 1st accused.
Following the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.04.2025, requiring him to appear on 30.04.2025. No reply was submitted. Consequently, the externment order dated 09.05.2025 (Ext.P3) was issued.
Petitioner’s counsel contended that the proceedings were invalid due to delay and the non-existence of recent criminal activity. While the latest registered offence was on 21.10.2024, it was contended that the offence was bailable and the petitioner had executed a bond under Section 126 BNSS before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Thrissur on 01.01.2025. No further crimes had occurred since.
It was argued that since nearly six months elapsed after the last prejudicial act and there was no further incriminating conduct, the essential live link between the act and the externment order was absent. It was also submitted that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's compliance with the bond executed before the SDM and failed to provide justification for the delay.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that a short delay occurred due to the need to collect information and adhere to procedural safeguards. He asserted that under Section 15 of the KAAPA Act, principles of natural justice must be observed and this can result in some time lapse. Reference was made to decisions in Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KHC 852] and Thejas v. Inspector General of Police [2015 (3) KHC 656] to support the submission that initiation of preventive proceedings is independent of subsequent criminal registration.
"The records made available before us reveal that the petitioner was categorized as a ‘known rowdy’ due to his involvement in four cases."
The Court observed that the power under Section 15 of the KAAPA Act is exercised when authorities arrive at objective satisfaction, based on credible material, that the individual has persistently engaged in anti-social activities. The individual must also be provided with notice and the opportunity to respond.
"The purpose of issuing an externment order is preventive and it aims to remove the individual from the area where he is perpetrating his anti-social activities so that peace and order can be maintained in the larger interest and welfare of the public."
The Court recorded that it is essential that "the live link between the individual’s last prejudicial activity, the proposal for externment, and the final order is maintained to ensure that the process is justified, and timely and the ultimate objective is served."
Quoting Deepak v. State of Maharashtra [2022 SCC Online SC 99], the Bench noted: "There cannot be any manner of doubt that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure... Such an order may deprive the person of his livelihood... Recourse should be taken to Section 56 very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure."
Further, in Rahmat Khan alias Rammu Bismillah v. Deputy Commissioner of Police [(2021) 8 SCC 362], it was stated: "...fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d)... cannot be taken away on frivolous grounds."
The Court held: "The externment order was finally issued on 09.05.2025, about 199 days after the last prejudicial act... If the authorities were genuinely concerned to prevent anti-social activities, prompt action would have been taken."
"The entire police records have been digitised... information... can be obtained with the click of a mouse."
"The externee had executed a bond... There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner committed any prejudicial act thereafter... This is not a sufficient enough reason to pass an order of externment."
The Bench stated that the delay remained unexplained and therefore amounted to a severance of the necessary causal link: "In the instant case, we are satisfied that the delay is unexplained and inordinate. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the live link between the last prejudicial act and the purposes of the externment order has been snapped."
The High Court issued the following directive: "Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 externment order No. B3-8096/2025/TSR dated 09.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent will stand quashed."
The directive thereby invalidated the externment order which barred the petitioner from entering Thrissur District, restoring his legal right to movement within the State.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. C. Dheeraj Rajan, Sri. Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Sri. Libin Varghese
For the Respondents: Adv. K.A. Anas, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shanif v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:49800
Case Number: WP(CRL.) No. 802 of 2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar
