‘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.
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.
Kerala HC Reduces Externment Period Due to Lack of Reasoned Order
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.
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.
Share
