Can ‘known rowdy’ banned from his own home? Kerala High Court steps in to redefine liberty v. security

The bench said that KAAP Act also applies to the person concerned with an intrusion to his personal liberty within the limit of Article 21. (Image enhanced using AI)

“The petitioner is interdicted from entering the revenue district of Thrissur for six months. An order of externment certainly has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual,” the court observed on 28 January.

The order added that such an order would deprive a citizen concerned of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India, and 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.

Findings

• It is evident from the records that, after taking into account the petitioner’s involvement in criminal activities, the Thrissur City district police chief has mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act against the petitioner.
• The sequence of the events narrated by the prosecution clearly shows that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment order.
• We are not unmindful of the fact that there was a delay of more than four months in mooting the proposal from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity.
• As the petitioner was in jail during March to May, 2025 that period, obviously, there was no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by him.
• Therefore, the delay that occurred during that period is liable to be discarded.
• Four cases formed the basis for passing the externment order. Therefore, some minimum time is naturally required to collect and verify the details of the cases in which the petitioner got involved.
• Unlike in the case of an order of detention passed under Section 3(1) (detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the government) of the KAAP Act, even if some delay has occurred in passing an order of externment, the same has no serious bearing, as the consequences of both the orders are different.
• Because an order of detention is a grave deprivation of the personal liberty of the person detained.
• We are cognizant that Section 15 (power to make orders restricting the movements of certain persons) of the KAAP Act also applies to the person concerned with an intrusion to his personal liberty within the limit of Article 21, especially when the said order restrains a citizen from his right to travel in any part of India.
• It stands on a different footing when compared to an order of externment.
• When a detention order under Section 3 is compared with an order of externment passed under Section 15(1)(a) (directing to avoid specified areas, except permitted, for up to one year) of the KAAP Act, the latter visits a person with lesser deprivation of liberty.
• Having considered the family constraints of the petitioner as projected by the counsel, and the period of externment already undergone by him, we are of the view that the order warrants modification with respect to the duration of the externment period.

Background

• The petitioner, a 20-year-old man, challenged an order of August 2025, issued by the deputy inspector general of police under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAAP Act.
• The order classified it as a known rowdy and interdicted it from entering the Trissur Revenue District for six months.
• The externment was based on the petitioner’s involvement in four criminal cases, the most recent involving offences under the BNS, including assault and criminal intimidation.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Athira Suresh, Roshan M Joy, and John Christo submitted that the order was passed on improper consideration of the facts and without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction.
• They further argued that there was an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order.
• State counsel, K A Anas, submitted that there was no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment order as contended by the petitioner.