Kerala High Court slams mechanical externment orders, cites violation of fundamental rights

Setting aside an order of externment passed by the police authorities barring a man from entering Palakkad district, the Kerala High Court recently observed that an externment order has a “heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of a citizen.”

A bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian delivered the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by a 29-year-old Palakkad resident challenging his externment under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act).

“Undisputedly, an order of externment has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of a citizen. Such an order would certainly restrict the free movement of a citizen, and he would be even prevented from entering his house,” the bench said on January 5.

The petitioner had challenged an externment order issued under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, which barred him from entering the limits of Palakkad district for six months.

The order was passed after the police classified him as a “known rowdy” and relied on three criminal cases, the most recent being on May 10, 2025 in Kollengode Police Station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including 126 (2) (wrongful restraint) 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means) and 110 (Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide).

The petitioner was arrested two days later and released on bail on June 30, 2025. Shortly thereafter, the district police chief forwarded a proposal for externment which came into force on July 31, 2025.

Advocate TK Sandeep, counsel for the petitioner contended that the externment order was passed mechanically and without proper application of mind.

He argued that although the authorities noted that the petitioner had been released on bail on stringent conditions, they failed to examine whether those conditions were sufficient to prevent any recurrence of criminal activity.

The counsel submitted that the law requires the authorities to be satisfied that ordinary criminal law remedies including bail conditions are inadequate before resorting to an extreme measure like externment.

Opposing the plea, advocate KA Anas, the government pleader for the state maintained that the externment order was passed after due consideration of material on record and in compliance with procedural safeguards.

The prosecution submitted that the authority had arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction and that the court should not interfere with preventive measures taken to maintain public order.

Acknowledging that there is no absolute bar on passing an externment order against a person who is already on bail, the court held that when such an order is contemplated, the authority must meaningfully assess whether the bail conditions imposed by a court are sufficient to deter further criminal conduct.

Mere reference to the fact of bail, the bench said, is not enough adding that preventive measures like externment can be justified only when ordinary criminal law remedies are found inadequate.

The court underscored that such an order restricts free movement and can even prevent a person from entering his own house, warranting strict scrutiny before its invocation.

Finding that the authority had failed to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner, the bench held the externment order to be vitiated for non-application of mind.

Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned externment order.