Kerala High Court reduces externment of ‘known rowdy’ from a year to 6 months

The petitioner, who was classified as a “known rowdy” by the authority concerned, filed the plea to challenge the September 2025 order of the deputy inspector general of police, which restricted him from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the said order. The court also noted that the main grievance of the petitioner, Jeffin, was the lack of any reason for passing the maximum period of externment.

According to Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, a district magistrate or a police officer of and above the rank of deputy inspector general can issue an externment order for a maximum period of one year to a known goonda or known rowdy preventing them from entering specific areas to stop them from engaging in anti-social activities.

The court noted that the authorities considered six cases in which the petitioner was involved while passing the said externment order.

‘Heavy bearing’

While authoring the judgment, Justice Sebastian highlighted that an order of externment certainly has a heavy bearing on the “personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual.”

“Such an order would certainly deprive a citizen concerned of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India,” the court lamented.

The court also noted that the man was prevented from entering his house and from residing with his family members during the subsistence of the said order.

‘No application of mind’

The court considered the contention of the petitioner and 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 was “too limited”.

The court, pointing out that the externment order did not mention the reasons for imposing the maximum period of externment, held that a bare perusal of the said order revealed that it did not disclose “any application of mind on this aspect.”

The high court, in its order on December 8, modified the duration of the externment order from one year to a period of six months from the date of receipt of the original order

Arguments

Advocate Manumon A, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the externment order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. He further mentioned that the authority concerned passed the said order in a “casual manner” without specifying any reason.

On the contrary, government pleader K A Anas submitted that the order was passed after proper application of mind and with required “objective as well as subjective satisfaction.” He also argued that there was “nothing wrong” in passing an externment order for one year if the circumstances warranted.