KAAPA | Minimal Delay In Passing Externment Order Not Fatal When Procedural Safeguards Followed: Kerala High Court

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an externment order issued against a person classified as a “known goonda”.

The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate delay both in mooting the proposal and passing the order of externment, which snapped the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment.

The Court held that externment proceedings stand on a different footing from preventive detention under Section 3(1) of KAAPA. While unexplained delay may be fatal to detention orders due to the grave deprivation of liberty involved, a short and reasonably explained delay in externment proceedings does not vitiate the order.

The Court noted that the last prejudicial activity was conducted by the petitioner on 22.04.2025, while the proposal for the initiation of the proceedings for externment was issued on 28.07.2025 and the externment order was passed on 09.09.2025.

“Some minimum time is required to collect and verify the details of the cases in which the petitioner is involved and to comply with the procedural formalities. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay that occurred in this case is adequately explained, and it cannot be said that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order is snapped” Court observed.

The Court further ruled that externment under Section 15(1)(a), though an intrusion into personal liberty under Article 21, results in a lesser degree of deprivation compared to preventive detention.

The petitioner has also contended that the jurisdictional authority failed to consider that a bond for keeping peace under Section 107 of the CrPC was executed by the petitioner.

The Court held that proceedings under Section 107 CrPC and externment under KAAPA operate in distinct legal spheres. While Section 107 proceedings merely require the execution of a bond to keep peace without restricting movement, externment empowers the State to geographically restrict a “known goonda” to prevent imminent or continued anti-social activities.

Relying on Anita Antony v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC OnLine 455], the Bench reiterated that authorities are duty-bound to consider whether ordinary criminal law measures are sufficient. The Court further noted that in the present case, further criminal cases were registered even after execution of a Section 107 bond and hence externment remains legally justified.

The Court thus dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v State of Kerala

Case No: WP(Crl.) 1613/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 859

Counsel for Petitioner: Jerry Mathew, Lloyd John

Counsel for Respondents: K A Anas