No Need to Prove 'Threat to Life' for Heirloom Firearm Licence: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Rule 25

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling clarifying the provisions for the transfer of firearm licences to legal heirs, the Karnataka High Court has held that an applicant seeking a licence for a firearm inherited from a living parent does not need to establish a 'threat to life'. The court quashed an endorsement by the Mangaluru Police Commissioner that had rejected an application on this very ground.

The single-judge bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha, a professional pilot.

Case Background

The petitioner, Michael Saldanha, sought an arms licence for a .32 caliber revolver belonging to his father, Placid Saldanha. The petitioner's father, aged 75, had held a valid licence for the firearm since 1971—a period of 54 years. Desiring to transfer the revolver to his son, the petitioner applied for a new licence in his name under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which governs the grant of licences to legal heirs.

The Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru (Respondent No. 3), initially rejected the application, stating that the petitioner had not established any threat to his life. Although this decision was set aside on appeal, the authority issued another endorsement on July 24, 2025, reiterating the same reason for denial. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Sri. Leelesh Krishna, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the licensing authority had fundamentally misinterpreted the law. He contended that the application was made under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Arms Rules, 2016, which specifically deals with the transfer of a firearm by a licensee who is still alive but has either reached the age of 70 or has held the firearm for 25 years. The counsel emphasized that this rule does not impose a condition for the legal heir to prove a life threat.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, defended the police commissioner's decision.

Court's Legal Analysis

The central legal question before the Court was: > "Whether in case of a transfer of the arm under clause (b) of Section 25(1) of the Arm Rules, 2016, there would be a requirement for the transferee of the arm or the applicant to establish threat to life?"

Justice Suraj Govindaraj meticulously analyzed Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The court noted the distinction between its sub-clauses:

- Clause (a) applies to the grant of a licence to a legal heir after the death of the original licensee.

- Clause (b) applies when the licensee is alive and wishes to transfer the firearm upon reaching 70 years of age or after holding the firearm for 25 years, whichever is earlier.

The court observed that the petitioner’s case squarely fell under Clause (b), as his father was 75 years old and had held the licence for 54 years, satisfying both conditions.

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

The court's reasoning was unequivocal. Justice Govindaraj stated: > "In that view of the matter, in terms of Rule 25 of the Arms Rule, the conditions in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 25(1) of the Arms Rule being satisfied, the respondents could not have rejected the application on the ground that there is no threat to life established by the petitioner."

The judgment clarified that the only requirements under the proviso to Rule 25 are that the legal heir meets the general eligibility conditions under the Act and that there are no adverse remarks in the police verification report. The concept of 'threat perception' is not a prerequisite for such a transfer.

Answering the legal question, the Court held: > "I answer the point raised by holding that when an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is made, during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs for transfer of licence and transfer of arm and there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the police commissioner's endorsement was contrary to law, the High Court allowed the writ petition.

1. A writ of certiorari was issued, quashing the impugned endorsement dated July 24, 2025.

2. A writ of mandamus was issued, directing the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to process the petitioner's application in accordance with Rule 25(1)(b) and issue the licence within four weeks.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent, preventing licensing authorities from arbitrarily imposing conditions like 'threat to life' in cases of heirloom firearm transfers, thereby upholding the legislative intent behind Rule 25 of the Arms Rules.