Premium

‘Heavy bearing on fundamental rights’: Kerala High Court slams unreasoned 1-year externment order

The court reduced the externment period imposed on the accused-petitioner from one year to six months while observing that the order didn't mention the reasons for imposing the maximum period of extrernment.

3 min readNew DelhiJan 22, 2026 12:30 PM IST

Kerala High Court reduced the externment period imposed on the accused-petitioner from one year to six months. (Image generated using AI)

While reducing the maximum period of externment imposed on a man, the Kerala High Court recently observed that an externment order has a heavy bearing on fundamental rights of an individual and the order must provide reasons while prescribing the maximum period.

A bench comprising Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian made the observations while dealing with a plea challenging the externment order passed against a Thrissur resident, holding that the authorities failed to justify imposing the maximum permissible period of externment without assigning reasons.

The bench held that an order of externment certainly has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual.

“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 are assigned. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect,” the bench noted.

The court reduced the externment period imposed on the accused-petitioner from one year to six months.

Original Order

1 Year

Maximum period imposed without reasons

Court's Order

6 Months

Reduced by 50% for procedural gaps

No Reasons Assigned

Order failed to justify maximum externment period

Rights Impact

Heavy bearing on fundamental rights noted by bench

No Application of Mind

Bare perusal revealed lack of reasoning process

Cautious Exercise

Authority must exercise power carefully despite statutory ceiling

Express InfoGenIE

Background

The District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act), before the authorised officer.
For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner got involved while passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 324(4) (mischief) and other sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year.

Also Read | ‘Deprivation of right to life’: Kerala High Court orders repatriation of two Sri Lankan siblings detained for two years

Findings

The main grievance of the petitioner is that it was without assigning any reason that the maximum period of externment was ordered.
While considering the 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.
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.
It can be seen that nowhere in the said order, the reasons for imposing the maximum period of externment are assigned.
The impugned order requires modification regarding the duration of the period of externment.

Ashish Shaji

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More