SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Ravi Shankar Tiwari and 4 Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 ors. - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 2844 OF 2024.
Decided On : 22-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Chandra Bhanu Singh.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Vijay Vikram Singh.

Citizens with valid firearms licenses cannot be compelled to deposit their firearms without a formal order from the competent authority, especially during elections.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Arms Act - Firearms license - The court reiterated that citizens with valid firearms licenses cannot be compelled to deposit their firearms merely due to impending elections without a formal order from the competent authority. The court emphasized adherence to previous judgments and the necessity for individual assessments in cases involving public safety. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Judicial Precedent - The court highlighted the importance of following established legal precedents, specifically the judgments in Mohd. Arif Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, and Shahabuddin v. State of U.P., which prohibit blanket orders for the deposit of firearms during elections without just cause. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the authorities' demands to deposit their firearms in light of upcoming elections, citing previous judgments that protect their rights as valid license holders.

Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the petition affirming that valid license holders should not be compelled to deposit their firearms without proper justification.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of compelling firearm deposit without individual orders and the adherence to prior judicial rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that blanket orders for firearm deposit violate the rights of license holders and emphasized the need for individual assessments based on public safety concerns.

Result: Writ petition disposed of in favor of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard Shri. Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3 & 4 and Shri. Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. There is consensus at the Bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by judgement of this Court dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No. 9064 of 2022 in re: Ram Rang Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and others.

3. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in the case of Ram Rang Jaiswal (supra) is reproduced below:

"Heard Sri. Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that similar controversy as raised in the present petition has been disposed off by this court in terms of the order dated 30.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Misc. Single No.8774 of 2019 (Ziaur Rahman Alvi v. State of U.P. and others) on the following terms :

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are being disposed of with the direction:-

i. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government that the citizens who have valid fire arms license including the petitioners, may not be compelled to deposit their fire arms in general merely on the basis of the ensuing Assembly Elections.

ii. It is also commanded that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any Officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizens in general to deposit their firearm unless there is an order of the Central Government as indicated hereinabvoe in the judgment.

However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibit orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of the Arms Act or under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after application of mind.

It will also not preclude the District Magistrates/SSPs/S.P.s/Incharge of the Districts to seize weapons and take action against the holders of fire arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act in case any attempt is made by any citizen to display or carry firearms at any time till the end of the elections as the orders have already been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

It is further clarified that in case any citizen has criminal antecedents or found displaying the arms, action may be taken against them in accordance with the provisions of law. District Magistrates are also directed to pass orders after examining the individual cases for suspending the licences and ensuring the deposit of arms in cases related to persons who have criminal history or who are on bail or lacked clean antecendents as the same might involved interference in the conduct of the free and fair elections."

(11) Considering the order of the respondents issued under the direction of the Election Commission of India and observation made in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

(12) Thus, on the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner possess valid arms license for his fire arms and no written order has been issued by the competent authority against him with the direction to deposit the arms, the petitioner will not be compelled to deposit his fire arms.

(13) However, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law on case to case basis, in case, if they feel that continuance of the fire arms with the petitioner shall be detrimental to public peace or law and order."

Thus, the present petition is also disposed off in terms of the order above extracted and on the same terms and conditions. "

4. Considering the aforesaid consensus, the writ petition is disposed of.

5. It is provided that the petitioner shall also be entitled for the be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top