No Blanket Order Can Be Passed To Deposit Licensed Firearms Before Elections: Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines

The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by authorities to ensure that orders are not passed demanding the deposit of firearms by licensed holders before Lok Sabha elections.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “Since the authorities are consistently violating the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, this Court deems it fit to issue certain directions.”

Accordingly it issued the following guidelines—

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 the forest area. They have to strike a balance between maintaining law and order during elections 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 election, there cannot be a blanket order calling upon these individuals/activists/ professionals to surrender guns/firearms especially when these individuals/professionals/activists have obtained 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 the election period and such individuals who have no nexus with the 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 prioritise 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, summarising 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 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 analyse historical data, identify patterns of misuse, and assess the 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.

The development comes in a batch of petitions filed against a blanket order dated 26-03-2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, calling upon the license holders to deposit the gun.

The petitioners argued that petitioners are predominantly agriculturists residing in a forested area having obtained firearms license to safeguard their crops and livestock loss from wildlife induced damage. Therefore, their possession of firearms is for legitimate purposes and does not pose any inherent threat to the election process.

The bench referred to the Election Commission guidelines which emphasises need for individualised scrutiny of firearm license holders, especially those with a history of criminal offences or involvement in rioting. It said “Therefore, the blanket order issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations such as farmers living in forested areas, those individuals who apprehend threat to life and have secured gun license for their personal protection.”

Noting that each firearms license holder undergoes a rigorous vetting process by the authorities before being granted a license, Court held, "Therefore, the action of the Deputy Commissioner in issuing directions by way of blanket order calling upon the license holders to surrender their guns without individualised review, contradicts not only the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, but it encroaches upon the very essence of license procedure.”

Court said 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 the potential threat that is posed in each district. Each district in the State has a different culture and misuse of firearms is subjective.”

It added “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.”

Accordingly it quashed the impugned order.

Appearance: Advocate Subramanya Bhat M for Petitioner.

AGA Rahul Cariappa for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 233

Case Title: M Govinda Bhat & ANR AND The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate and District Election Officer & others. Case No: 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.

Click Here To Read/Download Order