Second Firearm Licence Not a Right, Requires Justified Need Beyond Convenience: Rajasthan High Court on Arms Act, 1959 - 2024-11-13

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court: Second Firearm Licence Not Granted on Mere Inconvenience, Justified Need Essential

Jaipur: The High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), in a judgment pronounced on November 13, 2024, by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , upheld the decision of licensing authorities to refuse a second firearm licence to a police department employee, emphasizing that possessing a firearm is a statutory privilege and not a fundamental right in India. The court ruled that mere inconvenience in carrying an existing larger firearm does not automatically justify the grant of a licence for an additional, smaller weapon like a pistol.

Case Overview

The petitioner, Brijesh Kumar Singh , an employee of the police department, challenged orders dated December 6, 2016, and February 27, 2017, by which his request for a pistol licence was declined. His subsequent appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority (Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home) on March 3, 2019. Aggrieved, Mr. Singh filed a writ petition (CW / 7617 / 2019) seeking a direction for the grant of an additional firearms licence.

Mr. Singh already possessed a licence for a 12 bore gun, which he had received in succession (gifted by his father). He sought a second licence for a pistol, arguing that the 12 bore gun was large and difficult to carry, and a pistol was required for safety purposes. He also stated he was trained by the police department to use such a firearm.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions: * The petitioner argued that he required a pistol for safety and that his existing 12 bore gun was cumbersome. * He asserted that there is no bar under the Arms Act, 1959, for a person to possess two different weapons simultaneously. * Reliance was placed on a co-ordinate bench order in Bheema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/2016) to support his claim for an additional licence.

Respondent's Contentions (State of Rajasthan): * The State argued that the petitioner already possessed a licensed 12 bore gun and had failed to satisfy the authorities about the genuine need for a second weapon. * It was contended that the Bheema Ram case was distinguishable as the petitioner had not demonstrated any specific threat to his life necessitating a second firearm. * The impugned orders denying the licence were claimed to be just and proper.

Court's Reasoning and Interpretation of Law

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , after examining the submissions and records, delved into the legislative intent behind the Arms Act, 1959.

Objects of the Arms Act, 1959: The Court noted that one of the objects of the Act is "to ensure...that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege."

Statutory Framework (Sections 13 & 14): The judgment discussed Section 13, which allows the licensing authority discretion to grant or refuse a licence after due inquiry, and Section 14, which mandates refusal under specific circumstances, including if deemed necessary for public peace or safety.

No Fundamental Right to Bear Arms: A key point emphasized by the Court was the distinction between the right to bear arms in India and the USA.

"The right to bear arms is completely different in India when this right is compared to the United States of America (USA)...But carrying and possessing firearms in a country is only a matter of statutory privilege and no citizen has a blanket right to carry a firearm, as it is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 12831/2022) , which reiterated that no such fundamental right is conferred under the Indian Constitution and that the proliferation of unlicensed firearms is a disturbing trend.

Licence as a Privilege, Not a Whim: The Court observed that a firearms licence is a creation of statute, and its grant depends on the facts of each case. It expressed concern over the trend of seeking firearms for status rather than genuine need:

"One does not have a fundamental right to keep weapon and its possession nowadays is more for “showing off” as a “status symbol”, rather than for self defence, demonstrating that he is an influential person... Licence to hold an arm is to be granted where there is a necessity and not merely at the asking of an individual at his whims and fancies."

Petitioner's Justification Deemed Insufficient: The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide a justified reason for needing a second licence for a pistol/revolver. The argument that his 12 bore gun was "big in size" was not considered a valid ground.

"This cannot be a ground to claim licence for second weapon that the first weapon i.e. 12 bore gun is big in size and Revolver/Pistol is small in size."

The Court also noted that the petitioner "failed to make out a special case that his life is under serious threat and for that he needs two different licences, to carry two different firearms."

The precedent of Bheema Ram (Supra) was distinguished, as in that case, the second weapon was deemed necessary due to the nature of the business carried on by Bheema Ram , a justification absent in the present petitioner's case.

Final Decision

Concluding that the refusal to grant the second licence was well-reasoned by the authorities, the High Court found no grounds for interference.

"In the facts of the case, after having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition, as the refusal to grant second licence for Revolver/Pistol is well reasoned by the respondents," the Court stated.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications.