This court disposed of a writ petition alleging compulsion to deposit firearms for elections. Relying on a 2019 order, the court held that license holders cannot be generally compelled to deposit arms unless specific written orders exist, while allowing case-by-case action for public peace.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28674
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3293 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Shukla And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
"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."
Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Pradeep/-
Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ziaur Rahman Alvi vs State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.8774 of 2019 (Ziaur Rahman Alvi vs State of U.P. and others)
Rajeev Kumar Shukla
9 Others
State Of U.P.
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
