SHO Can’t Mandate Surrender Of Arms Through Phone Call In View Of Elections: Kerala High Court
The petitioners had approached the Kerala High Court, aggrieved by a phone call received from the SHO asking them to surrender their arms in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India.
Justice C. Jayachandran, Kerala High Court
While allowing two writ petitions challenging the mandate of the Station House Officers to deposit the firearms ahead of elections, the Kerala High Court has held that the SHO concerned cannot order surrender of arms through a phone call.
The petitioners had approached the High Court aggrieved by a phone call received from the Officers asking them to surrender their arms in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India in W.P.(C).No.12394/2026 relating to the deposit of arms.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held, “This Court notice that the S.H.O. concerned (the 4th respondent in both the cases) cannot mandate surrender of arms through a phone call.”
“In the circumstances, it is clarified that the petitioners are not under any obligation to surrender their arms based on phone call by the 4th respondent”, it added.
Advocate P. Sheeba represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel M. Ajay represented the Respondent.
The Bench was of the view that the guidelines enumerated by the Election Commission of India required deliberation by the competent Authority on an individual basis, a review and an assessment, whereafter an Order had to be passed calling upon the licence holders to surrender their arms.
The High Court further noticed that this issue was recently considered in Anand M.S. v. State Of Kerala on March 26, 2026 (W.P.(C).No.11762/2026) and it was held that as per the guidelines dealing with the deposit of firearms, impounding can be ordered only if the authority is satisfied, after a detailed and individual review and assessment, that it is necessary to maintain law and order, as also, for conduct of free and fair elections.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench held that the Competent Authority in terms of the guidelines would pass necessary orders if the petitioners are required to surrender their arms. “While passing such Orders, the impact of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.11762/2026 dated 26.03.2026 shall necessarily be considered by the competent Authority and directions, if any, for surrender shall be in strict compliance of Ext.P2 guidelines and its interpretation in the judgment above referred”, it ordered.
Considering the claim of the petitioners that their respective arms had been deposited because of the pressure exerted by the SHOs, the Bench directed the Officers to return the same to the petitioners within two days. In light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench allowed the petitions.
Cause Title: N.P. Kunhikannan v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:27351)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate P. Sheeba
Respondent: Standing Counsel M. Ajay, Government Pleader Vidhya A.C.