Full Judgment Text
R
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9932 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.9918 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9941 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9959 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9932/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . M GOVINDA BHAT
S/O M ACHUTHA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT MADHUVANA,
MANIMOOLE, MANILA VILLAGE,
BANTWALA TQ, D K DISTRICT-574 243
2 . NISHANTH NARAYANA
S/O NARAYANA BAHT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BILLAMPADAVU HOUSE
ALIKE VILLGE, BANTWALA TQ
POST: SATHYA SAI VIHARA
ALIKE, D K DISTRICT-574 243
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT .M, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND
DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
OLD PORT ROAD
MANGALORE-575 001
2 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITTAL POLICE STATION
D K DISTRICT-574 243
3 . THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-01
4 . THE SCREENING COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED FOR DEPOSIT OF
LINCENSED FIREARMS
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA
OLD PORT ROAD
MANGALORE-01
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BARING NO.ARM (1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED 26/03/2024
ISSUED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-E) IN SO FAR AS THE SAME
PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS AS THE SAME IS IN UTTER
VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BESIDES
3
BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9918/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. M. SUDARSHAN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
S/O THIRUMALESHWARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4-117(1)
MULIYA HOUSE, ALIKE, BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 235
2 . MR. A. MOHANA
ADVOCATE
S/O A.KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1-133
MAIRA HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN - 574 243
3 . MR. N. VASISHTHA BHAT
S/O N GOPALA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 6-134
NAVANOOJIBAIL HOUSE
KOLNADU, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN – 574 323
4 . MR. M KRISHNARAJA
S/O M SHIVARAMA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 3-14
PERIYAPADDY HOUSE
SATHYA SAI VIHAR
4
ALIKE, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN – 574 235
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALURU, D.K. - 575 001
3 . SCREENING COMMITTEE FOR
SURRENDER OF ARMS
DAKSHINA KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001
4 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITTAL POLICE STATION
VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT – 574 243
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 IN NO. A.R.M. (1) 125/2024/E-
5
383376/C3 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED
AND WHOSE NAMES ARE SHOWN AT SERIAL NO. 10, 4, 5 AND 6
OF THE LIST OF BANTWAL TALUK RESPECTIVELY COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT TO PASS AN ORDER EXEMPTING THE PETITIONERS
FROM DEPOSIT OF THEIR LICENSED ARMS AS PRAYED IN THEIR
APPLICATIONS COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-G DATED 20/03/2024
ANNEXURE-M AND ANNEXURE-R DATED 21/03/2024
RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9925/2024
BETWEEN:
PURUSHOTHAMA GOWDA
S/O M BOLIANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/AT MALKAJE HOUSE
KAMILA POST
GUTHIGAR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574 218
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
6
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2 . THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI – 110 001
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER /
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU
OLD PORT ROAD
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001
4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001
5 . THE TASILDAR
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
6 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 02.04.2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO. ARM(1)
125/2024/E-383376/C3 PASSED BY THE R3 (PRODUCED VIDE
7
ANNEXURE-D) AND DECLARE THE SAME IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO THE WP IN SO
FAR AS IT CONCERNED TO THE PETITIONER AT SL. NO. 79 OF
SULLIA TALUK AND SL. NO. 5 AT SELF DEFENSE COLUMN AND
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9941/2024
BETWEEN:
GIRIJASHANKAR K
S/O LATE K PURANDARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BADEKAIKOMBU HOUSE
MOODAPADUKODI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK-574 265
DAKSHINA KANNADA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575 001
3 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER /
SUB-INSPECTOR
PUNJALAKATTE POLICE STATION
8
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 233
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
4 . SCREENING COMMITTEE
APPOINTED UNDER NOTIFICATION
OF ELECTION COMMISSION HEADED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU-575 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO.ARM(1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED
18/03/2024 IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED AND THE
ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO. ARM(1)125/2024/E-
383376/C3 WHICH ARE FILED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY R2 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER RELIEF ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9959/2024
BETWEEN:
JAYAPRASAD
S/O SHAMA JOSHI
AGED 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT BELLARE VILLAGE AND POST
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
9
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575 001
3 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER /
SUB INSPECTOR
PUNJALAKATTE POLICE STATION
BANTWALA TALUK-573 4233
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
4 . SCREENING COMMITTEE
APPOINTED UNDER NOTIFICATION
OF ELECTION COMMISSION
HEADED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU-575 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO. ARM(1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED
18/03/2024 AND THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO.
ARM(1)125/2024/E-383376/C3 PASSED BY THE R2 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND MAY FURTHER BE
10
PLEASED TO ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER ON THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petitions challenge the blanket direction
issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the
consequent order declining to grant exemption.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AGA for the respondents.
3. The central issue before this Court is to
determine the legality and propriety of the impugned order
particularly in the light of the guidelines issued by the
Election Commission of India aimed at maintaining law and
order during elections.
4. The Election Commission of India recognizing
potential risk associated with possession of firearms during
11
the election period has issued comprehensive guidelines.
The primary object of these guidelines is to maintain law
and order with a specific focus on identifying and
scrutinizing the person with history of criminal offences,
especially those involved in rioting during previous election
period.
5. The petitioners predominantly agriculturists
residing in a forested area having obtained firearms license
to safeguard their crops and livestock loss from wildlife
induced damage. Therefore, petitioners in the captioned
petitions have contended that their possession of firearms
is for legitimate purpose and does not pose any inherent
threat to election process. Petitioners contend that they
are law abiding citizens who intend only to exercise their
democratic right to participate in electoral process.
Petitioners contend that they are seriously aggrieved by the
blanket order passed by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner.
12
6. The short question that falls for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner was justified in issuing a blanket order calling
upon the license holders to deposit the gun. The directive
issued by the Election Commission envisages a review
before asking for deposit of guns and not a review after
deposit to determine. The procedure adopted by the
Deputy Commissioner is clearly found to be in
contravention of the guidelines issued by the Election
Commission of India.
7. Each firearms license holder undergoes a
rigorous vetting process by the authorities before being
granted a license. This process includes a thorough
background check, verification of antecedents and
consideration of genuine need of firearm, such as protection
from wildlife in relevant areas. Therefore, the action of the
Deputy Commissioner in issuing directions by way of
blanket order calling upon the license holders to surrender
13
their guns without individualized review, contradicts not
only the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of
India, but it encroaches upon the very essence of license
procedure.
8. The Election Commission guidelines explicitly
emphasizes need for individualized scrutiny of firearm
license holders, especially those with a history of criminal
offences or involvement in rioting. Therefore, the blanket
order issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner
disproportionately impacts vulnerable population such as
farmers living in forested areas, those individuals who
apprehend threat to life and have secured gun license for
their personal protection. Therefore, imposing blanket
restriction without considering these unique circumstances
often leads to undue hardships and this Court is flooded
with writ petitions on the eve of every ensuing elections.
14
9. Though Bombay High Court in the case of
Govinda @ Bhai Ganesh Tilve vs. Vikram Kumar,
1
District Registrar and Others and Allahabad High Court
in the case of Ravi Shankar Tiwari & Others vs. State of
2
U.P. have laid down several directives, the authorities
have not adhered to the directions issued by various High
Courts. This Court in W.P.No.7900/2023 has exhaustively
dealt with this issue and has held that it is the screening
committee which is vested with ample power to review all
the issues in respect of holders of armed license. The
coordinate Bench while taking cognizance of the action of
the police officers issuing notice to surrender the firearms
held that it is only the Screening Committee and District
Administration who are vested with the authority to call
upon the license holders to deposit firearms with the police
station.
1
Criminal Petition No.835 of 2009
2
Writ C.No.2844 of 2024
15
10. In the background of the law laid down by the
various High Courts and also the judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench, this Court has to examine the facts and
circumstances of the present case on hand. In the present
case on hand, this Court is more than satisfied that there is
no individual review. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner
by issuing a blanket order has set a dangerous precedent
for future elections. It could encourage the authorities to
resort to blanket orders as a short circuit bypassing a
meticulous review process mandated by Election
Commission. The object behind surrender of firearms as
stipulated by the Election Commission guidelines and
judicial pronouncements is to uphold the integrity of
electoral process and ensure maintenance of law and order.
The surrender of firearms is envisaged as a measure to
mitigate potential threats to public safety and sanctity of
democratic procedures during elections.
16
11. Inspite of several judicial pronouncements, the
authorities are resorting to blanket orders. Maybe this
exercise is done by the authorities as they are not in a
position to collect information about individual license
holders which needs more time and effort, but that does
not necessarily mean that the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner can resort to one-size-fits-all approach by
promulgating a general order. Statistically the gun
deposited in pursuit of these orders are viewed as a feather
in the cap in the endeavor to maintain peace on the eve of
elections.
en masse
12. By way of deposit of firearms,
probably the authorities are happy that significant strides
have been made in compliance with the directives and
probably all stake holders are satisfied that something
substantial is done by the District Magistrate in compliance
of directions issued by the Election Commission of India.
There must be a sense of balance in imposing prohibitions.
17
en masse
13. If firearms are retrieved from the
authorized license gun holders, it would be rather strenuous
even for the Screening Committee to independently review
each application and then ascertain as to whether
exemption can be granted and the firearm recovered under
a general order can be released to an individual. This task
also leads to a mountainous task which cannot be
accomplished within a short span.
14. There can be a very few cases of use of firearms
in offences especially during the elections. Not all districts
in the Karnataka State may have a potential threat of
disruption of elections. Therefore, the respective Deputy
Commissioner’s and the screening committees are required
to act anticipating to potential threat that is posed in each
district. Each district in the State has a different culture
and misuse of firearm is subjective. The authorities cannot
generalize and in an anticipation of violation without
application of mind, pass a general order. In few districts,
18
the citizens under compelling reasons secure firearms
license. Possessing a firearm license is deeply embedded in
their culture. The citizens are trained by culture as to how
to use the firearms for limited purpose. The human wildlife
conflict is a major issue where residents are found to be
residing abutting to the forest area. The local farmers and
agriculturists on account of wildlife induced damage to
crops and livestock loss under compelling reasons seek gun
license as a means of protection.
15. The need to obtain a gun license by
agriculturalists is rooted in their fundamental need to
safeguard their crops, fields, and livelihoods from an array
of threats, including wildlife intrusion, pest infestations, and
potential trespassers. Firearms serve as indispensable tools
for agriculturalists, enabling them to protect their
agricultural assets effectively and ensure the viability of
their livelihoods. This reliance on firearms is not merely a
matter of convenience but a vital aspect of preserving the
19
economic sustainability and security of agricultural
operations. In every ensuing elections if the residents who
en masse
hold gun license are called upon to surrender
firearms, that does not serve the purpose for which
guidelines are issued by the Election Commission of India.
16. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the
screening committee are required to review in terms of
guidelines issued by the Election Commission only in the
following cases i.e., where persons are released on bail,
persons having a history of criminal offences and persons
previously involved in rioting at any time especially during
election period or there may be cases where the residents
who are openly supporting any political party have an
antecedent of using firearms to disrupt the fair election
process. In such cases, the screening committee and the
Deputy Commissioner have to implement the guidelines and
only those license holders are to be screened and
appropriate directions are to be issued calling upon them to
20
deposit the firearms with the jurisdictional police station or
armory depot.
17. Since the authorities are consistently violating
the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India,
this Court deems it fit to issue certain directions as follows:
i) The authorities are strictly prohibited from issuing
blanket orders that demand the deposit of firearms from all
license holders. Such blanket orders not only contravene
the specific directives issued by the Election Commission
but also fail to address the nuanced risks associated with
individual license holders.
ii) The authorities have to take cognizance of the
vulnerable communities who are often facing wildlife
induced damage to crops and livestock. The Screening
Committee therefore has to adopt a nuanced and evidence
based approach to address the firearms possessed by the
farmers abutting to forest area. They have to strike a
balance between maintaining law and order during elections
21
and at the same time, protect the rights of vulnerable
communities and the negative interactions between wild
animals and the residents residing at the foot of the forest
area. Therefore, the Screening committee while
implementing the directives issued by the Election
Commission of India has to demonstrate flexibility
regarding surrender of firearms taking into account not only
the individual circumstances of farmers and their specific
threats faced at the hands of wild animals, but there has to
be an overall assessment of that region which is often
affected due to interaction between wild animals and the
losses incurred by the farmers.
iii) There are several individuals including activists,
Advocates who are often exposed to potential risk to their
life. Therefore, during every elections, there cannot be a
blanket order calling upon these individuals/activists/
professionals to surrender guns/firearms especially when
these individuals/professionals/activists have obtained
22
licenses for personal security and the same is critical to
hold guns for ensuring their safety and wellbeing.
Therefore, by way of blanket order, the authorities cannot
expose the individuals vulnerable to threat to life. This may
be also prevalent during election period and such
individuals who have no nexus with election process may
need firearms more during the elections, than otherwise.
iv) All directives and communications regarding the
deposit or any other action related to firearms must be
conveyed in written form. This ensures transparency,
accountability, and provides a clear record of instructions
issued. Oral instructions, whether given in person or over
the phone, are susceptible to misinterpretation and should,
therefore, be avoided to maintain the integrity of the
process.
v) Before the commencement of any election,
authorities must conduct a rigorous screening process of
firearm license holders. This process should prioritize
23
individuals with a history of criminal offences, especially
those previously involved in rioting or violence during
election periods. The objective is to identify potential risks
and take necessary precautions to maintain law and order.
vi) The Election Commission shall provide clear and
comprehensive guidelines outlining the responsibilities and
duties of concerned police officials in conducting the pre-
election screening. These guidelines should detail the
criteria for assessing risks and the procedures for
documenting and reporting and volume of instructions
issued by the Election Commission. There is a need for a
concise and accessible guide. The Election Commission
should compile and publish a user-friendly guide before
every election, summarizing the key instructions and
procedures for officials involved in the conduct of elections.
vii) Although police stations may not typically
maintain lists of persons on bail, they should keep records
of individuals charged in offences relating to rioting during
24
elections. This information is crucial for assessing the
eligibility of firearm license holders and ensuring compliance
with the Election Commission's directives.
viii) The Election Commission should actively monitor
the implementation of its directives by securing reports
from all district magistrates. These reports should provide
insights into the effectiveness of the screening process and
highlight any challenges or areas for improvement.
ix) A comprehensive review should be conducted after
every election to evaluate the implementation of the
Election Commission's directives. This review should aim to
identify procedural errors, assess the overall effectiveness
of the screening process, and make necessary adjustments
to prevent future lapses.
x) In addition to the pre-election screening, an
extensive review of firearm offences directly related to
elections should be conducted. This review should analyze
historical data, identify patterns of misuse, and assess the
25
potential threats posed by firearms in disrupting the
electoral process. The insights gained from this review will
inform the screening committee's decisions and contribute
to a more targeted and effective approach.
xi) Rather than resorting to mass withdrawal of
firearms, authorities should adopt a targeted approach
based on individual risk assessments. This involves
evaluating the potential threat of violence and misuse of
guns by license holders on a case-by-case basis.
18. These guidelines are designed to strike a balance
between safeguarding public safety and upholding individual
rights. By adhering to these guidelines, authorities can
ensure a fair, transparent, and accountable process that
maintains the integrity of the electoral system while
respecting the rights of firearm license holders.
19. In the light of the observations made supra, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
26
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed;
(ii) The impugned orders dated 18.03.2024
and 26.03.2024 issued by the respondent-
Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed
insofar as petitioners are concerned;
(iii) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for
consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9932 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.9918 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9941 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.9959 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9932/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . M GOVINDA BHAT
S/O M ACHUTHA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT MADHUVANA,
MANIMOOLE, MANILA VILLAGE,
BANTWALA TQ, D K DISTRICT-574 243
2 . NISHANTH NARAYANA
S/O NARAYANA BAHT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BILLAMPADAVU HOUSE
ALIKE VILLGE, BANTWALA TQ
POST: SATHYA SAI VIHARA
ALIKE, D K DISTRICT-574 243
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT .M, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND
DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
OLD PORT ROAD
MANGALORE-575 001
2 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITTAL POLICE STATION
D K DISTRICT-574 243
3 . THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-01
4 . THE SCREENING COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED FOR DEPOSIT OF
LINCENSED FIREARMS
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA
OLD PORT ROAD
MANGALORE-01
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BARING NO.ARM (1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED 26/03/2024
ISSUED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-E) IN SO FAR AS THE SAME
PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS AS THE SAME IS IN UTTER
VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BESIDES
3
BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9918/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. M. SUDARSHAN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
S/O THIRUMALESHWARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4-117(1)
MULIYA HOUSE, ALIKE, BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 235
2 . MR. A. MOHANA
ADVOCATE
S/O A.KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1-133
MAIRA HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN - 574 243
3 . MR. N. VASISHTHA BHAT
S/O N GOPALA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 6-134
NAVANOOJIBAIL HOUSE
KOLNADU, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN – 574 323
4 . MR. M KRISHNARAJA
S/O M SHIVARAMA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 3-14
PERIYAPADDY HOUSE
SATHYA SAI VIHAR
4
ALIKE, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN – 574 235
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALURU, D.K. - 575 001
3 . SCREENING COMMITTEE FOR
SURRENDER OF ARMS
DAKSHINA KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001
4 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITTAL POLICE STATION
VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT – 574 243
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 IN NO. A.R.M. (1) 125/2024/E-
5
383376/C3 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED
AND WHOSE NAMES ARE SHOWN AT SERIAL NO. 10, 4, 5 AND 6
OF THE LIST OF BANTWAL TALUK RESPECTIVELY COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT TO PASS AN ORDER EXEMPTING THE PETITIONERS
FROM DEPOSIT OF THEIR LICENSED ARMS AS PRAYED IN THEIR
APPLICATIONS COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-G DATED 20/03/2024
ANNEXURE-M AND ANNEXURE-R DATED 21/03/2024
RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9925/2024
BETWEEN:
PURUSHOTHAMA GOWDA
S/O M BOLIANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/AT MALKAJE HOUSE
KAMILA POST
GUTHIGAR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574 218
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
6
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2 . THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI – 110 001
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER /
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU
OLD PORT ROAD
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001
4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001
5 . THE TASILDAR
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
6 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION
SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 02.04.2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO. ARM(1)
125/2024/E-383376/C3 PASSED BY THE R3 (PRODUCED VIDE
7
ANNEXURE-D) AND DECLARE THE SAME IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO THE WP IN SO
FAR AS IT CONCERNED TO THE PETITIONER AT SL. NO. 79 OF
SULLIA TALUK AND SL. NO. 5 AT SELF DEFENSE COLUMN AND
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9941/2024
BETWEEN:
GIRIJASHANKAR K
S/O LATE K PURANDARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BADEKAIKOMBU HOUSE
MOODAPADUKODI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK-574 265
DAKSHINA KANNADA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575 001
3 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER /
SUB-INSPECTOR
PUNJALAKATTE POLICE STATION
8
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 233
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
4 . SCREENING COMMITTEE
APPOINTED UNDER NOTIFICATION
OF ELECTION COMMISSION HEADED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU-575 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO.ARM(1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED
18/03/2024 IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED AND THE
ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO. ARM(1)125/2024/E-
383376/C3 WHICH ARE FILED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY R2 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER RELIEF ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9959/2024
BETWEEN:
JAYAPRASAD
S/O SHAMA JOSHI
AGED 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT BELLARE VILLAGE AND POST
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
9
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575 001
3 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER /
SUB INSPECTOR
PUNJALAKATTE POLICE STATION
BANTWALA TALUK-573 4233
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
4 . SCREENING COMMITTEE
APPOINTED UNDER NOTIFICATION
OF ELECTION COMMISSION
HEADED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU-575 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO. ARM(1)125/2024-E-383376/C3 DATED
18/03/2024 AND THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2024 BEARING NO.
ARM(1)125/2024/E-383376/C3 PASSED BY THE R2 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND MAY FURTHER BE
10
PLEASED TO ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER ON THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petitions challenge the blanket direction
issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the
consequent order declining to grant exemption.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AGA for the respondents.
3. The central issue before this Court is to
determine the legality and propriety of the impugned order
particularly in the light of the guidelines issued by the
Election Commission of India aimed at maintaining law and
order during elections.
4. The Election Commission of India recognizing
potential risk associated with possession of firearms during
11
the election period has issued comprehensive guidelines.
The primary object of these guidelines is to maintain law
and order with a specific focus on identifying and
scrutinizing the person with history of criminal offences,
especially those involved in rioting during previous election
period.
5. The petitioners predominantly agriculturists
residing in a forested area having obtained firearms license
to safeguard their crops and livestock loss from wildlife
induced damage. Therefore, petitioners in the captioned
petitions have contended that their possession of firearms
is for legitimate purpose and does not pose any inherent
threat to election process. Petitioners contend that they
are law abiding citizens who intend only to exercise their
democratic right to participate in electoral process.
Petitioners contend that they are seriously aggrieved by the
blanket order passed by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner.
12
6. The short question that falls for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner was justified in issuing a blanket order calling
upon the license holders to deposit the gun. The directive
issued by the Election Commission envisages a review
before asking for deposit of guns and not a review after
deposit to determine. The procedure adopted by the
Deputy Commissioner is clearly found to be in
contravention of the guidelines issued by the Election
Commission of India.
7. Each firearms license holder undergoes a
rigorous vetting process by the authorities before being
granted a license. This process includes a thorough
background check, verification of antecedents and
consideration of genuine need of firearm, such as protection
from wildlife in relevant areas. Therefore, the action of the
Deputy Commissioner in issuing directions by way of
blanket order calling upon the license holders to surrender
13
their guns without individualized review, contradicts not
only the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of
India, but it encroaches upon the very essence of license
procedure.
8. The Election Commission guidelines explicitly
emphasizes need for individualized scrutiny of firearm
license holders, especially those with a history of criminal
offences or involvement in rioting. Therefore, the blanket
order issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner
disproportionately impacts vulnerable population such as
farmers living in forested areas, those individuals who
apprehend threat to life and have secured gun license for
their personal protection. Therefore, imposing blanket
restriction without considering these unique circumstances
often leads to undue hardships and this Court is flooded
with writ petitions on the eve of every ensuing elections.
14
9. Though Bombay High Court in the case of
Govinda @ Bhai Ganesh Tilve vs. Vikram Kumar,
1
District Registrar and Others and Allahabad High Court
in the case of Ravi Shankar Tiwari & Others vs. State of
2
U.P. have laid down several directives, the authorities
have not adhered to the directions issued by various High
Courts. This Court in W.P.No.7900/2023 has exhaustively
dealt with this issue and has held that it is the screening
committee which is vested with ample power to review all
the issues in respect of holders of armed license. The
coordinate Bench while taking cognizance of the action of
the police officers issuing notice to surrender the firearms
held that it is only the Screening Committee and District
Administration who are vested with the authority to call
upon the license holders to deposit firearms with the police
station.
1
Criminal Petition No.835 of 2009
2
Writ C.No.2844 of 2024
15
10. In the background of the law laid down by the
various High Courts and also the judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench, this Court has to examine the facts and
circumstances of the present case on hand. In the present
case on hand, this Court is more than satisfied that there is
no individual review. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner
by issuing a blanket order has set a dangerous precedent
for future elections. It could encourage the authorities to
resort to blanket orders as a short circuit bypassing a
meticulous review process mandated by Election
Commission. The object behind surrender of firearms as
stipulated by the Election Commission guidelines and
judicial pronouncements is to uphold the integrity of
electoral process and ensure maintenance of law and order.
The surrender of firearms is envisaged as a measure to
mitigate potential threats to public safety and sanctity of
democratic procedures during elections.
16
11. Inspite of several judicial pronouncements, the
authorities are resorting to blanket orders. Maybe this
exercise is done by the authorities as they are not in a
position to collect information about individual license
holders which needs more time and effort, but that does
not necessarily mean that the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner can resort to one-size-fits-all approach by
promulgating a general order. Statistically the gun
deposited in pursuit of these orders are viewed as a feather
in the cap in the endeavor to maintain peace on the eve of
elections.
en masse
12. By way of deposit of firearms,
probably the authorities are happy that significant strides
have been made in compliance with the directives and
probably all stake holders are satisfied that something
substantial is done by the District Magistrate in compliance
of directions issued by the Election Commission of India.
There must be a sense of balance in imposing prohibitions.
17
en masse
13. If firearms are retrieved from the
authorized license gun holders, it would be rather strenuous
even for the Screening Committee to independently review
each application and then ascertain as to whether
exemption can be granted and the firearm recovered under
a general order can be released to an individual. This task
also leads to a mountainous task which cannot be
accomplished within a short span.
14. There can be a very few cases of use of firearms
in offences especially during the elections. Not all districts
in the Karnataka State may have a potential threat of
disruption of elections. Therefore, the respective Deputy
Commissioner’s and the screening committees are required
to act anticipating to potential threat that is posed in each
district. Each district in the State has a different culture
and misuse of firearm is subjective. The authorities cannot
generalize and in an anticipation of violation without
application of mind, pass a general order. In few districts,
18
the citizens under compelling reasons secure firearms
license. Possessing a firearm license is deeply embedded in
their culture. The citizens are trained by culture as to how
to use the firearms for limited purpose. The human wildlife
conflict is a major issue where residents are found to be
residing abutting to the forest area. The local farmers and
agriculturists on account of wildlife induced damage to
crops and livestock loss under compelling reasons seek gun
license as a means of protection.
15. The need to obtain a gun license by
agriculturalists is rooted in their fundamental need to
safeguard their crops, fields, and livelihoods from an array
of threats, including wildlife intrusion, pest infestations, and
potential trespassers. Firearms serve as indispensable tools
for agriculturalists, enabling them to protect their
agricultural assets effectively and ensure the viability of
their livelihoods. This reliance on firearms is not merely a
matter of convenience but a vital aspect of preserving the
19
economic sustainability and security of agricultural
operations. In every ensuing elections if the residents who
en masse
hold gun license are called upon to surrender
firearms, that does not serve the purpose for which
guidelines are issued by the Election Commission of India.
16. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the
screening committee are required to review in terms of
guidelines issued by the Election Commission only in the
following cases i.e., where persons are released on bail,
persons having a history of criminal offences and persons
previously involved in rioting at any time especially during
election period or there may be cases where the residents
who are openly supporting any political party have an
antecedent of using firearms to disrupt the fair election
process. In such cases, the screening committee and the
Deputy Commissioner have to implement the guidelines and
only those license holders are to be screened and
appropriate directions are to be issued calling upon them to
20
deposit the firearms with the jurisdictional police station or
armory depot.
17. Since the authorities are consistently violating
the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India,
this Court deems it fit to issue certain directions as follows:
i) The authorities are strictly prohibited from issuing
blanket orders that demand the deposit of firearms from all
license holders. Such blanket orders not only contravene
the specific directives issued by the Election Commission
but also fail to address the nuanced risks associated with
individual license holders.
ii) The authorities have to take cognizance of the
vulnerable communities who are often facing wildlife
induced damage to crops and livestock. The Screening
Committee therefore has to adopt a nuanced and evidence
based approach to address the firearms possessed by the
farmers abutting to forest area. They have to strike a
balance between maintaining law and order during elections
21
and at the same time, protect the rights of vulnerable
communities and the negative interactions between wild
animals and the residents residing at the foot of the forest
area. Therefore, the Screening committee while
implementing the directives issued by the Election
Commission of India has to demonstrate flexibility
regarding surrender of firearms taking into account not only
the individual circumstances of farmers and their specific
threats faced at the hands of wild animals, but there has to
be an overall assessment of that region which is often
affected due to interaction between wild animals and the
losses incurred by the farmers.
iii) There are several individuals including activists,
Advocates who are often exposed to potential risk to their
life. Therefore, during every elections, there cannot be a
blanket order calling upon these individuals/activists/
professionals to surrender guns/firearms especially when
these individuals/professionals/activists have obtained
22
licenses for personal security and the same is critical to
hold guns for ensuring their safety and wellbeing.
Therefore, by way of blanket order, the authorities cannot
expose the individuals vulnerable to threat to life. This may
be also prevalent during election period and such
individuals who have no nexus with election process may
need firearms more during the elections, than otherwise.
iv) All directives and communications regarding the
deposit or any other action related to firearms must be
conveyed in written form. This ensures transparency,
accountability, and provides a clear record of instructions
issued. Oral instructions, whether given in person or over
the phone, are susceptible to misinterpretation and should,
therefore, be avoided to maintain the integrity of the
process.
v) Before the commencement of any election,
authorities must conduct a rigorous screening process of
firearm license holders. This process should prioritize
23
individuals with a history of criminal offences, especially
those previously involved in rioting or violence during
election periods. The objective is to identify potential risks
and take necessary precautions to maintain law and order.
vi) The Election Commission shall provide clear and
comprehensive guidelines outlining the responsibilities and
duties of concerned police officials in conducting the pre-
election screening. These guidelines should detail the
criteria for assessing risks and the procedures for
documenting and reporting and volume of instructions
issued by the Election Commission. There is a need for a
concise and accessible guide. The Election Commission
should compile and publish a user-friendly guide before
every election, summarizing the key instructions and
procedures for officials involved in the conduct of elections.
vii) Although police stations may not typically
maintain lists of persons on bail, they should keep records
of individuals charged in offences relating to rioting during
24
elections. This information is crucial for assessing the
eligibility of firearm license holders and ensuring compliance
with the Election Commission's directives.
viii) The Election Commission should actively monitor
the implementation of its directives by securing reports
from all district magistrates. These reports should provide
insights into the effectiveness of the screening process and
highlight any challenges or areas for improvement.
ix) A comprehensive review should be conducted after
every election to evaluate the implementation of the
Election Commission's directives. This review should aim to
identify procedural errors, assess the overall effectiveness
of the screening process, and make necessary adjustments
to prevent future lapses.
x) In addition to the pre-election screening, an
extensive review of firearm offences directly related to
elections should be conducted. This review should analyze
historical data, identify patterns of misuse, and assess the
25
potential threats posed by firearms in disrupting the
electoral process. The insights gained from this review will
inform the screening committee's decisions and contribute
to a more targeted and effective approach.
xi) Rather than resorting to mass withdrawal of
firearms, authorities should adopt a targeted approach
based on individual risk assessments. This involves
evaluating the potential threat of violence and misuse of
guns by license holders on a case-by-case basis.
18. These guidelines are designed to strike a balance
between safeguarding public safety and upholding individual
rights. By adhering to these guidelines, authorities can
ensure a fair, transparent, and accountable process that
maintains the integrity of the electoral system while
respecting the rights of firearm license holders.
19. In the light of the observations made supra, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
26
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed;
(ii) The impugned orders dated 18.03.2024
and 26.03.2024 issued by the respondent-
Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed
insofar as petitioners are concerned;
(iii) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for
consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA