[Kerala Preventive Detention Law] High Court Confines Operation Of Externment Order Issued With Four Months Delay

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen thus confined the operation of externment order and observed,

“Having adverted to the factual situation as above, as we find there is much delay affecting the proprietary of the impugned order, no interference is called for to set aside the order. However, also taking note of the fact that the order is already in operation for more than three months, we confine the operation of the externment order till today (10.11.2023).”

An order of externment was passed against the petitioner invoking section 15 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 (hereafter, KAA(P)A Act) for a period of six months. On appeal, the advisory board reduced the externment period to four months. The externment order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court on the ground of delay.

The petitioner contended that the last crime registered against him was on April 17, 2023 and the show cause notice was issued only on August 2, 2023 which was after much delay. The order of externment was passed on August 21, 2023. The petitioner argued that there should be a live or proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the order of externment. Relying upon, Deepak S/O Laxman Dongre v State of Maharashtra (2022), Ashraf Ali v State of Kerala (2023) and Shamnad Amiyan v State of Kerala (2023), it was argued that the delay in initiation of proceedings would vitiate the purpose of issuance of externment order.

The Court noted that delay may not be decisive in every case as the authorities will have to consider various factors while issuing such an order. Considering the factual matrix, the Court stated that it was not a case where a detention order but an order of externment was passed after much delay. On finding that the externment order was in operation for more than three months, the Court restricted its operation.

Accordingly, it disposed of the writ petition.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates S.K.Adhithyan and Althaf Nabeel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 649

Case title: Mathews A v State of Kerala

Case number: WP(CRL.) NO. 1046 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment