In a significant ruling safeguarding individual liberties, the Kerala High Court has strongly criticized the mechanical issuance of externment orders, emphasizing their severe impact on fundamental rights. The court set aside an order that barred a 29-year-old man from entering Palakkad district.
Court's Stern Observation on Personal Liberty
A bench comprising Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian delivered the judgment on January 5. They were hearing a writ petition filed by the Palakkad resident challenging his externment under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The bench unequivocally stated, "Undisputedly, an order of externment has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of a citizen." The judges highlighted that such an order restricts free movement and can even prevent a person from entering their own home, warranting strict judicial scrutiny before its invocation.
Background of the Case and Legal Arguments
The petitioner had been barred from entering Palakkad district for six months under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act. The police had classified him as a "known rowdy," relying on three criminal cases. The most recent case was registered on May 10, 2025, at Kollengode Police Station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including charges for wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, causing hurt using dangerous weapons, and attempt to commit culpable homicide.
After his arrest and subsequent release on bail on June 30, 2025, the District Police Chief forwarded an externment proposal. The order came into force on July 31, 2025.
Arguing for the petitioner, Advocate TK Sandeep contended that the order was passed mechanically without proper application of mind. He stressed that the authorities failed to examine whether the stringent bail conditions imposed on the petitioner were sufficient to prevent criminal activity, a necessary step before resorting to the extreme measure of externment.
Opposing the plea, Government Pleader KA Anas argued that the order was passed after due consideration of material on record and in compliance with procedural safeguards, asserting it was a necessary preventive measure for public order.
Court's Verdict and Key Legal Principle
The court acknowledged that there is no absolute bar on externment for a person on bail. However, it laid down a crucial legal principle: the authority must meaningfully assess whether existing bail conditions are sufficient to deter further crime. Mere reference to the fact of bail is inadequate.
The bench ruled that preventive measures like externment can be justified only when ordinary criminal law remedies are found to be insufficient. Finding that the authority had failed to apply its mind to the sufficiency of the petitioner's bail conditions, the court held the externment order to be legally flawed.
Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the externment order was set aside. This judgment reinforces the need for a balanced approach where state action for public order does not arbitrarily override the fundamental rights of citizens.
