Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Rajendra Singh – Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2023 in SLP(Crl) No. 12831 of 2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-02-2023 in SLP(Crl) No. 12831 of 2022 passed by the Supreme Court Of India)
Decided On : 07-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh , AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Akshay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abbas B, Adv. Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Shruti Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Vineet Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania Aor, Adv. Mr. Sushil Tomar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Mrs. Neelakshi Bhadouria, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. K.m. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.k. Singhania, Adv. Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad, AAG Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Adv./AOR Mr. Nishant Patil, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Sarat, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv. Mr. Bijender Chaudhry, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Ms. Deepti Hooda, Adv. Mr. Manider Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
The proliferation of unlicensed firearms poses a significant threat to public safety, necessitating stringent regulation and effective enforcement of existing laws.

Headnote:
(A) Arms Act, 1959 - Regulation of unlicensed firearms - The Court took suo motu cognizance of the menace of unlicensed firearms, emphasizing the need for strict regulation and monitoring to preserve public safety. The Arms Act governs the possession and use of firearms, with recent amendments enhancing penalties for violations. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Right to Life - Article 21 of the Constitution - The proliferation of illegal arms poses a significant threat to the right to life, necessitating effective measures by the State to ensure public safety. (Paras 1-6)
Facts of the case:
The Court initiated proceedings regarding the increasing use of unlicensed firearms in serious crimes, noting the absence of a constitutional right to bear arms in India. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that despite existing laws, the implementation is ineffective, leading to a rise in illegal arms production and use. (Paras 8-9)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the effectiveness of current laws regulating firearms and the need for a comprehensive action plan to combat illegal arms proliferation. (Paras 8-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the existing legislative framework is insufficient to curb the menace of unlicensed firearms, necessitating the formation of committees to oversee enforcement and compliance. (Paras 9-12)
Result: The Court directed the formation of committees in each State and Union Territory to address the issue of unlicensed firearms and report back with an action plan.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document primarily focuses on the regulation of unlicensed firearms, the menace posed by illegal arms, and the measures undertaken by the authorities and courts to curb this issue. It emphasizes the importance of strict enforcement of the Arms Act, amendments to enhance penalties, and the formation of committees to oversee compliance and enforcement efforts.

Regarding the specific legal query about whether social media videos alone, without a link to a recovered prohibited arm or criminal intent, are sufficient for a conviction, the document does not explicitly address this issue. The emphasis throughout is on the regulation, enforcement, and monitoring of firearms, as well as the importance of tangible evidence such as the possession or recovery of prohibited arms and the demonstration of criminal intent.

There is no indication in the document that social media videos by themselves, without a connection to a prohibited firearm or evidence of criminal activity, would suffice for establishing guilt or conviction. The focus remains on concrete evidence related to firearms and their illegal possession or use, rather than on purely visual or digital evidence such as social media videos.

In summary, based on the provided document, it can be inferred that social media videos alone, without a link to a recovered prohibited arm or criminal intent, are generally considered insufficient for a conviction under the laws and enforcement measures discussed. The legal framework and court directions stress the importance of corroborative evidence linking the alleged offense to tangible items or clear criminal intent.

ORDER

By order dated 28.02.2023, this special leave petition [SLP(Crl.) No.12831/2022] was permitted to be withdrawn. However, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the aspect regarding the menace of the unlicensed fire arms and passed the following order:

“This special leave petition has been filed challenging the order by which the High Court has declined to pass order in favour of the applicant-petitioner under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Read order dated 13.02.2023, which is as follows:-

"Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that 12 witnesses out of

15 have already been examined and only three remain. He would seek time, however, to find out whether any of the witnesses has given evidence about the involvement of the petitioner in the incident and if so, in what manner.

List the matter on 28th February, 2023.

Petitioners will be at liberty to file rejoinder in the meantime.

It is again one of those cases where we find that according to the prosecution case, an unlicensed fire arm was used in commission of the offence involving Section 302 IPC also. We have come across cases where there is this phenomenon of use of unlicensed fire arms in the commission of serious offences and this is very disturbing.

Unlike the Constitution of the United States where the right to bear fire arms is a fundamental freedom, in the wisdom of our founding fathers, no such right has been conferred on anyone under the Constitution of India. The matter relating to regulation of fire arms is governed by Statute, viz., Arms Act, 1959, inter alia.

It is of the greatest significance to preserve the life of all, that resort must not be made to unlicensed fire arms. In particular, if unlicensed fire arms are freely used, this will sound the death knell of rule of law.

We deem it appropriate, therefore, to make use of this case to ascertain and do whatever may be necessary so that the problem of unlicensed fire arms are firmly dealt with by the authorities.

The respondent-State will, accordingly, place an affidavit before this Court as to the number of cases it has registered under the Arms Act or under any other law enabling it to do so for the possession and use or any other aspect relating to unlicensed fire arms. Such an affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. The affidavit will be sworn to by the 3 Director General of Police of the respondent State. The affidavit also will indicate the steps taken by the respondent-State towards rooting out the evil of unlicensed fire arms."

As far as the special leave petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition. In view of the fact that, this Court has directed an affidavit to be filed in respect of menace of unlicensed fire arms. While we permit the petitioner to withdraw the special leave petition, we retain seisin over the case by taking suo motu notice in regard to the aspect of unlicensed fire arms.

List the matter on 20th March, 2023 for consideration of aspect relating to unlicensed fire arms.

We direct that the Registry will indicate this matter as on Court's motion.”

2. By order dated 13.04.2023, notices were issued to all the other States as well as to the Union of India to submit their response to the order dated 28.02.2023, which reads as under:

“Heard Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of 2 U.P. and Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Amicus Curiae.

This is a matter concerning the proliferation of unlicensed fire arms a phenomenon which appears to be very common as can be seen when the Court hears through criminal cases. It has very serious consequences both in terms of the right to life as also the administration of justice

Today, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Amicus Curiae, would submit that it is necessary to deal effectively with the matter, that the Court gets inputs and suggestions from all the States and the Union Terri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

IMPORTANT POINTThe proliferation of unlicensed firearms poses a significant threat to public safety, necessitating stringent regulation and effective enforcement of existing laws.

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Rajendra Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

Rajat Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 837

Nahida Fatima Alias Naheed Fatma VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1545

Vaijnath s/o Sitaram Phad VS State of Maharashtra The Collector/District Magistrate

Aman Ullah vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Home Lko - 2026 Supreme(All) 257

RAGHUVEER SINGH vs COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS - 2020 Supreme(Online)(All) 45

Sambit Padhy @ Padhi vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack - 2026 Supreme(Ori) 217

Ram Pal vs Commissioner Lucknow Div. Lucknow - 2026 Supreme(All) 358

Lal Abhay Nath Sahdeo @ Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 981

S. K. Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 2005 7 Supreme 581

IMPORTANT POINT
The proliferation of unlicensed firearms poses a significant threat to public safety, necessitating stringent regulation and effective enforcement of existing laws.