Back
No to Gun License, Employment Need Doesn't Justify Renewal:
The has firmly ruled that there is no to obtain or renew a gun licence in India, dismissing a filed by three individuals who claimed their job prospects depended on renewal of their arms licences.
A Plea Tied to Employment
Md. Kapil Uddin Laskar, Md. Alauddin Borbhuyan and Hussain Ahmed, all residents of Hojai district in Assam, approached the High Court challenging the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to renew their gun licences. The petitioners contended they were earlier employed in private companies in Nagaland and other places outside Assam, and that the expiry of their licences had rendered them jobless.
They argued that their licences were issued by the and that no-objection certificates had been granted for renewal, which the authorities failed to consider. The petitioners also relied on a decision of the in , suggesting renewal could be considered by another State.
Raising Red Flags: The Age Anomalies
The State, through an affidavit-in-opposition filed on , opposed the petition. Deputy Commissioner, Hojai had applied his mind and concluded it was not a fit case for renewal. A subsequent affidavit dated highlighted serious anomalies—all three licences appeared to have been issued when the holders were below the statutory minimum age of 21 years.
The records showed Laskar's licence was issued on while his recorded date of birth is , making him just 10 years old at issuance. Barbhuyan's licence was issued on against a birth date of (age 9). Ahmed's licence was issued on against a birth date of (age 19). These figures appeared to violate , which prescribes 21 as the minimum age for acquiring or carrying firearms.
The petitioners' counsel clarified that the licences were initially issued in the names of other persons in Nagaland and subsequently transferred to the petitioners, explaining why the original issue dates predated their adulthood.
Privilege, Not a Right
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, hearing the matter, underscored a critical distinction: issuance or renewal of a gun licence is not a but only a .
"Unlike the United States of America where there is an amendment recognizing the right to possess arms, Indian Law confers no such rights and the license issued is only a under the ,"the Court observed.
The Court noted that a licence cannot be sought "on whims" and that "" must be manifestly demonstrated. The discretion exercised by the licensing authority is subjective and based on "all the relevant factors."
Precedents Aligned
The judgment drew upon the 's recent order in
Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(
), which held that the right to bear firearms is not a fundamental freedom. The Court also observed that
"
have laid down that there cannot be any right to obtain licence or possess arms under the Arms Act."
The Court further warned that granting licences without considering relevant factors would amount to
"a dangerous practice in a democratic country,"
observing that possessing arms has increasingly become "a status symbol" used to project influence.
A Cautionary Observation
"Grant of gun licence / renewal thereof without taking into consideration the relevant factors would amount to a dangerous practice in a democratic country."
The Court explicitly rejected the petitioners' employment-based argument, holding that
"no person can as a matter of right seek renewal or issuance of a gun licence which ultimately would depend on the
of the issuing authorities."
The Verdict
Finding no grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the . The judgment affirms that a licensing authority's discretion in refusing renewal, based on and identified discrepancies, is not open to challenge merely on grounds of employment necessity. The decision reinforces the position that arms possession in India remains a regulated statutory grant—not an individual entitlement—shaped by considerations of public peace and safety.
