Minimal Delay In Passing Externment Order After Last Prejudicial Activity Not Fatal: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging an order of externment under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The Kerala High Court has held that a minimal delay in passing externment order doesn't snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging an order of externment passed against the Petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held, "....when a detention order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is compared with an order of externment passed under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, the latter visits a person with lesser deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the nature of proceedings under Sections 3(1) and 15(1)(a) is inherently different. In this regard, we are fortified by the decision in Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala and others [2011 (1) KHC 852]. Moreover, an order under Section 15(1)(a) can be treated only as equivalent to a condition imposed in a bail order, especially when the same only curtails the movement of the petitioner. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the minimal delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity has no serious impact at all, and the same is only liable to be discarded."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Jerry Mathew, while the Respondent was represented by Government Pleader K.A. Anas.
Facts of the Case
By the impugned order, the Petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of the Revenue District Thiruvananthapuram City for a period of six months. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, had submitted a proposal for 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 City, after considering the Petitioner’s recurrent involvement in criminal activities. For the purpose of initiating such proceedings, the Petitioner was classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
The authority had considered six cases in which the Petitioner was involved while passing the externment order.
Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that there was an inordinate delay both in mooting the proposal and in passing the impugned order, thereby snapping the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment. He further contended that the jurisdictional authority ought to have duly considered the fact that the Petitioner had already executed a bond for keeping peace under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., and that the said proceedings were sufficient to prevent the Petitioner from engaging in criminal activities.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that the sequence of events narrated reveals that there is no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order.
"....We are not oblivious that there is a short delay of around three months in forwarding the proposal seeking initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner after the date of commission of the last prejudicial activity. However, an externment order under the KAA(P) Act has a significant bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, some minimum time is required to collect and verify the details of the cases in which the petitioner is involved and to comply with the procedural formalities. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay that occurred in this case is adequately explained, and it cannot be said that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order is snapped", the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Praveen @Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala (2025:KER:93160)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Jerry Mathew, Advocate Lloyd John
Respondent- Government Pleader K.A. Anas
Click here to read/ download Order