High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-01Writ petition disposed of with directions to fi...

P.P. Mohammed Ali and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.12919 of 2024

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: petitioners may submit applications for exemption to the Screening Committee within two days from receipt of a copy of the judgment. If filed, the Screening Committee shall pass appropriate orders. Moreover, if the petitioners file exemption applications within two days and provide copies of this judgment and the exemption application to respondents 5–12, those respondents shall not insist on surrender until the Screening Committee decides the matter. The court noted that a full hearing with pleadings might be time-consuming and thus opted for a provisional approach to preserve safety and rights during the election period.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to file exemptions before the Screening Committee and possible exemption if filed within two days; non-surrender is ordered pending decision by the Committee.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.P. Mohammed Ali
Benseer P.P
Migdad P.M
Mohamed Hassan Kodithodi
Mohammed Aneesh P
Moidu A.T.
Safar T.K
Rajesh T.
Mohammed Shereef
Mohammed Shafaf

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Chief Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, New Delhi
The District Collector, Civil Station, Malappuram District
The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Malappuram District
The Station House Officer, Kondotty Police Station
The Station House Officer, Pookottupadam Police Station
The Station House Officer, Edakkara Police Station
The Station House Officer, Nilambur Police Station
The Station House Officer, Melattur Police Station
The Station House Officer, Kalikavu Police Station
The Station House Officer, Thiroorangadi Police Station
The Station House Officer, Tirur Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jayaprakash Narayanan
• Saji Kuriachan
• M.R.Nandakumar
• Arjun Anil

Counsels for Respondents

• Deepu Lal Mohan
• Sri. Riyal Devassy
• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, ten licensed arms holders (petitioners) challenge a government directive requiring them to deposit their weapons during the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024. They argue that the orders to surrender arms were issued without following the procedures set out in Ext. P1, a circular of the Election Commission, and that depositing licensed arms would defeat the very purpose of the licenses by depriving them of a means to protect themselves for an extended period (till after the election results, roughly two months). They assert that the directive would impede their life safety and that the Screening Committee’s role and the exemption mechanism have not been properly invoked in their case. Relying on a prior decision of this Court in Joseph K. A. v. District Collector, Kottayam and Others (2019 (1) KLT 1034), they contend that any order to deposit weapons must be grounded in Ext. P1 and justified by procedures thereunder. The respondents, represented by their counsel, contend that a Screening Committee has been constituted to consider exemptions and that those seeking exemptions may apply for relief; they emphasise the need to ensure election security while balancing individual safety. The Court, noting time constraints and the need to avoid infringing on rights before pleadings are completed, disposed the petition by directing the petitioners to file exemption applications with the Screening Committee within two days. If filed, the Committee will decide and, pending decision, respondents are not to insist on surrender. The Court thus preserves a route to exemption while admitting the petitions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compliance with Ext.P1 Circular before ordering deposition of arms during elections.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the arms licenses are issued for their safety and protection. Depositing arms would nullify the purpose of the license, as the arms could only be reclaimed after the election results, delaying protection for up to two months. They allege Ext. P1 circular was not followed in mandating surrender and that a Screening Committee has to assess any exemptions; without proper compliance, the orders are untenable. They seek exemption from surrender or at least a framework for exemption that respects their right to self-protection during the pre-election period. They emphasize that deposit could expose them to danger in the lead-up to elections and that the directive should comply with due process and the Committee’s determinations to avoid infringing fundamental rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that a Screening Committee has been constituted to examine exemptions and that those who seek exemptions may apply. They argue the guidelines and the process aim to balance public security with individual rights, ensuring a peaceful electoral process. They contend that Ext. P1 circular governs the procedure and that the Court should not pre-emptively override the Screening Committee’s work. They assert that the two-day time-frame is a procedural matter to be considered by the Screening Committee and advocate orderly compliance with the Election Commission’s directions for arm-surrender during elections.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joseph K. A. v. District Collector, Kottayam and others	2019 (1) KLT 1034	Positive	Directly cited to justify that orders for deposit must comply with Ext.P1 Circular and proper grounds are required.
W.P.(C) No. 5780 of 2021	W.P.(C) NO. 5780 OF 2021	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P2 is referenced but not discussed in detail in the judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 9933, 10598 of 2009	W.P.(C) No. 9933, 10598 of 2009	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P3 refers to judgments in these cases; cited as background material.
W.P.(C) No. 11254 of 2024	WP(C) NO.11254/2024	Mentioned Only	Judgment of this Court dated 20-03-2024 referenced in Annexure R2(C).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.P. Mohammed Ali and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 12919 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 P.P. MOHAMMED ALI AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P.P. MOHAMMED, PALASSERI PULLIKKAL HOUSE, KUNNUMPURAM, KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676305`** - **`2 BENSEER.P.P AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR NORTH P.O., A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305`** - **`3 MIGDAD.P.M AGED 60 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED MULLATHAYIL, ASHIYANA HOUSE, POOKAYIL BAZAR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676107`** - **`4 MOHAMED HASSAN KODITHODI AGED 49 YEARS S/O. URUL MOHAMMED.K. MOROOTIL HOUSE, MONGAM.P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673642`** - **`5 MOHAMMED ANEESH.P AGED 62 YEARS S/ O. CHEKKU.P., PULATH HOUSE, NELLIYAMPADAMKALAM, CHOKKAD.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332`** - **`6 MOIDU.A.T. AGED 44 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED.A.T., ARIMBRA THAYYIL HOUSE, EDAPPATTA.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679326`** - **`7 SAFAR.T.K AGED 59 YEARS S/ O. ABOOBACKER.T.K., THUPPILIKKADAN HOUSE, NILAMBUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679330`** ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 8RAJESH.T. AGED 50 YEARS S/ O. NARAYANANNAIR, THARIPPALA HOUSE PADINJATTIYAMPADAM, CHUNGATHALA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679334 ``` - **`9 MOHAMMED SHEREEF AGED 54 YEARS S/ O. HASSAN KOYA, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPUZHAPALAM, POOKOTTUMPADAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM ., PIN - 679332`** - **`10 MOHAMMED SHAFAF AGED 36 YEARS S/ O. MAMMED, CHOLATHAYIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673638`** ``` BY ADVS. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN SAJI KURIACHAN M.R.NANDAKUMAR ARJUN ANIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036`** - **`2 THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`** - **`3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505`** - **`4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) CIVIL STATION P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505`** - **`5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KONDOTTY POLICE STATION KONDOTTY.P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 673638`** - **`6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOKOTTUPADAM POLICE STATION POOKOTTUPADAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332`** - **`7 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAKKARA POLICE STATION EDAKKARA.P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679331`** ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` - **`8 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILAMBUR POLICE STATION NILAMBUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679329`** - **`9 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MELATTUR POLICE STATION MELATTUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679326`** - **`10 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KALIKAVU POLICE STATION KALIKAVU.P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676525`** - **`11 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIROORANGADI POLICE STATION THIROORANGADI.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306`** - **`12 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TIRUR POLICE STATION TIRUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676101`** ## **`BY ADV DEEPU LAL MOHAN SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024 The writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the direction issued to deposit the licensed arms held by the petitioners prior to the impending Lok Sabha Elections, 2024 without any specific reasons. 2. The petitioners submit that the licences are issued for their safety and protection. Once deposited, the same could be reclaimed only after the declaration of the election results which would come only after a span of at least two months. Such deposit would destroy the very purpose of issuance of the valid arms licence. 3. As per Ext.P1 Circular, the 2[nd] respondent-Election Commission of India has issued guidelines to be complied with, prior to directing a valid arms licence holder to deposit their arms during the period of elections. However, in the case of the petitioners, no procedures laid down thereunder have ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` been followed while directing them to surrender their arms. 4. This Court has categorically held in Joseph K. A. v. District Collector, Kottayam and others [2019 (1) KLT 1034] that in the context of depositing of weapons during the period of election, orders can be passed for such depositing only after complying with the clauses in Ext.P1 Circular. 5. The petitioners apprehend that depositing their validly held arms during such a long period will prevent them from protecting their life in the event their encounters any mishaps. The direction of the respondents to the petitioners to deposit their arms during the period of election dehors any legally tenable reason and dehors any finding to that effect by the Screening Committee, is untenable and is liable to be interfered with by this Court, contended the petitioners. 6. Standing Counsel representing the Election Commissioner filed a statement and submitted that a Screening Committee has been constituted and the Screening Committee will be considering the issues in detail. However, if ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` any licensee wants the arms to be retained during the election period, such licensees are entitled to seek exemption from the orders of the Government and Election Commission. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 3 to 12. 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the view that detailed consideration of the legal issues projected by the counsel for the petitioners would require completion of pleadings by the parties, which may render the writ petition infructuous due to time constraints. For the time being, it will be sufficient that the petitioners submit an application for exemption before the Screening Committee. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the Screening Committee seeking exemption from surrendering of arms. If the petitioners submit applications within two days from the date of receipt of copy of ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` **==> picture [65 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** this judgment, the Screening Committee shall pass appropriate orders. If the petitioners file applications for exemption within two days and produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of exemption application before respondents 5 to 12, respondents 5 to 12 shall not insist for surrender of arms till the Screening Committee takes a decision in the matter. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk ``` WP(C) No.12919 of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12919/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 01.09.2009FROMTHEELECTION COMMISSION Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-03- 2021 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5780 OF 2021 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-01- 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 9933, 10598 OF 2009 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE R2(A)THEPHOTOCOPYOFLETTER NO.464/INST/2022/EPS DATED 26-04-2022 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICERS OF STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES ``` ``` ANNEXURE R2(B)THE PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDING NO. DCMPM/3590/2024-E4 DATED 21-03-2024 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE R2(C)THE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-03- 2024 IN WP(C)NO.11254/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ```