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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
SHIBU T C – Appellant
Versus
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13949 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S., SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR, SMT.ASWATHY MENON, SMT.SIMMY JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, SENIOR GP DEEPA NARAYANAN

Firearm surrender during elections must follow Election Commission guidelines; non-compliance warrants release.

Headnote:The petitioner held licences for two firearms and was directed to surrender them during elections per police order, contrary to guidelines issued by the Election Commission (Ext.P2) specifying procedural requirements for surrender. One firearm was surrendered to police (Ext.P6), the other deposited in an armoury (Ext.P5) under district collector's direction. Court found the surrender violated the prescribed procedure. Issue framed: Whether the firearm surrender complied with Election Commission guidelines (Ext.P2). Court observed non-conformance with procedure, referencing prior similar writ petitions where release was directed. Writ petition allowed; direction issued to release both firearms to petitioner on 11.04.2026.

Table of Content
1. petitioner surrendered firearms per police order. (Para 1)
2. surrender violated election commission circular. (Para 2)
3. non-compliance with procedure mandates firearm release. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was in possession of two firearms and was directed to surrender the same as per the order issued by the 4th respondent. The petitioner surrendered one firearm before the 4th respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P6 proceedings. As regards the other firearm, the same was already deposited in an armoury, as evidenced by Ext.P5, and as per the direction of the 3rd respondent, the same is in safe custody.

2. The petitioner submits that the direction issued by the 4th respondent is in violation of Ext.P2 circular issued by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner further submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court interfered and issued directions to release the firearms to the petitioners therein in WP(C) No.10529/2026 and several other cases.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. It is not disputed that the surrender of the firearms was not in consonance with the procedure laid down in Ext.P2. Hence there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to release the firearm to the petitioner and issue appropriate directions to the armory where the other firearm is deposited to release the same to the petitioner on 11.04.2026.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

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