'Heavy Bearing On Fundamental Rights': Kerala High Court Modifies Externment Order Of Maximum Period Passed Without Reason

The Kerala High Court recently modified an externment order restraining a person from entering the Thrissur revenue district after finding that there was no reason assigned for passing the order for maximum period.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that an externment order would have a huge impact on the fundamental and personal rights of a person and therefore, while passing the maximum period, the authority must assign proper reasons for the same.

"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. By such an order, he is prevented from entering his house and from residing with his family members during the subsistence of the order as well. Therefore, while prescribing the maximum period of externment, the jurisdictional authority must apply its mind properly, and the order must reflect the necessity of passing the maximum period. In other words, the order should provide reasons for invoking the maximum period of externment," the Court observed.

The Court was considering a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the externment order passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).

Three weeks before the order of externment was passed, the District Police Chief submitted a proposal for initiating proceedings against the petitioner and he was classified as a "known rowdy".

The petitioner's involvement in three cases, the latest one registered almost three months before the initiation of proceedings, was considered by the authority that passed the order. The petitioner was issued a notice and he was heard before the order was passed, in conformity with the procedural safeguards.

The petitioner argued that no reasons were assigned by the authority while passing the maximum period of one year permitted. The prosecution contended that maximum period can be awarded in certain cases that warranted it.

The Court relied on Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Others of the Apex Court which had held that if an externment order for maximum period was passed without recording reasons necessitating the same, such an order will be considered to have imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

Reliance was also placed on Dinchu Mohanan v. State of Kerala and another [2015 (2) KHC 101] wherein it was held that the court has the power to annul, amend or confirm an order of externment.

Next, looking at the impugned order, the Court observed that no reasons were assigned for imposing maximum punishment and that same does not disclose any application of mind on the aspect. Thus, the Court felt it fit to modify the period in the order.

Allowing the writ in part, the Court said that petitioner shall be interdicted from entering the district for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the externment order.

Case No: WP (Crl.) 43 of 2026

Case Title: Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

Counsel for the petitioner: P. Yadhu Kumar, Aswini Sankar R.S., Aswathy Menon, Simmy Joseph

Counsel for the respondents: K.A. Anas - Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment