It is most noteworthy that while ruling on a most significant point pertaining to carrying of weapons, the Single Judge Bench of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7617/2019 that was reserved on 05/11/2024 and then finally pronounced on 13/11/2024 has been most forthright in taking potshots by remarking clearly that the trend of weapon possession among people is driven by the desire to show it off as a ‘status symbol’ than for self defence purposes. It must be mentioned here that the Bench was hearing a police official’s plea against rejection of his request for grant of license for his pistol. He already had a licensed 12 bore gun. We thus see that the Bench refused to interfere with the competent authority’s order rejecting a man’s application for a second gun license which was sought on the ground that the first licensed gun that he possessed a 12 bore gun, was too heavy for him to carry.
It was also made absolutely clear by the Jaipur Bench that an arms license should not be granted based on personal desire or convenience but only when there is a genuine need for self-defence. What also cannot go unnoticed is that the Bench underscored unequivocally that owning and carrying firearms is a matter of statutory privilege, not a fundamental right. The Bench also was very particular to shed light in order to make it absolutely clear in plain language that no citizen in India has an unrestricted right to carry or possess a firearm, as it is not protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
No wonder, the Bench after perusing the facts of the case found that the petitioner who was a police official had failed to establish a specific threat to his life that would justify the need for a second firearm. Resultantly, we find that the Jaipur Bench thus dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the licensing authority to not allow the second firearm license. It was also pointed out by the Bench that even in USA, the right to bear arms was guaranteed by Second Amendment to Constitution but this right is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions and scrutiny allowed primarily for self defense against threats.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant writ petition impugns the validity of the orders dated 06.12.2016 and 27.02.2017 whereby request of the petitioner for grant of pistol licence has been declined, against which an appeal was preferred by him before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 03.03.2019.”
As an ostensible fallout, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way filing of this writ petition seeking direction against the respondents for grant of additional firearms licence.”
On the one hand, the Bench mentions in para 3 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving in the police department and he is having a 12 bore gun which he received in succession. Counsel submits that for the safety purpose, a pistol is also required and he has already got training from the Police department to use the said firearm. Counsel submits that a person can possess two different weapons, at the same time and there is no bar provided under the Arms Act, 1959 to possess two weapons simultaneously. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bheema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/2016) dated 21.08.2018. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for grant of additional licence to possess second weapon.”
On the other hand, the Bench then states in para 4 that, “Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is already in possession of licensed 12 bore gun and he has not satisfied the authorities about the need of second weapon. Counsel submits that the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as no fact has been narrated with respect to the threat to petitioner’s life. Counsel submits that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are just and proper, which require no interference by this Court and the present petition is liable to be rejected.”
Needless to state, the Bench then observes in para 5 that, “Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 6 that, “The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner applied for second licence of Revolver/Gun before the authorities by way of submitting an application that he is having 12 bore gun licence bearing No. JNBHP/New/2014/ BL/320 which he received in gift from his father. Since this gun is big in size, the petitioner is facing difficulties in carrying the 12 bore gun. The aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Police Commissioner, Licensing and Legal, Jaipur on the count that the petitioner is already in possession of a gun licence, hence, there is no justification available with the petitioner for getting second licence to carry another firearm. Giving the aforesaid reason, the application to get second weapon licence was rejected vide orders dated 06.12.2016 and 27.02.2017.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 that, “Aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2016, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’) and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority and Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, vide order dated 03.03.2019 on the same ground that if the petitioner is already in possession of 12 bore gun licence, then there is no justification for getting one more licence to carry another firearm.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 8 that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by all the impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this writ petition.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “The law relating to Arms and Ammunition is governed by the Act of 1959. From perusal of the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1959, it can be seen that the Bill was introduced before the Parliament to achieve various objects such as;
“The objects of this Bill are-
(a) to exclude knives, spears, bows and arrows and the like from the definition of “arms”;
(b) to classify firearms and other prohibited weapons so as to ensure-
(i) that dangerous weapons of military patterns are not available to civilians, particularly the antisocial elements; (ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege; and (iii) that firearms required for training purpose and ordinary civilian use are made easily available on permits;
(c) to co-ordinate the right of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country;
(d) to recognize the right of the State to requisition the services of every citizen in national emergencies. The licensees and permit holders for firearms, shikaris, target shooters and rifle-men in general (in appropriate age groups) will be of great service to the country in emergencies, if the Government can properly mobilize and utilize them.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “The object No.(b)(ii) indicates that the legislature intended to ensure that the weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens having license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege.”
Do further note, the Bench notes in para 13 that, “Chapter-III of the Act of 1959 deals with the provisions relating to licences. Section 13 requires an application for grant of licence under Chapter-II to be made to the licensing authority. Sub Section 2A of Section 13 requires that after considering the report received from the Officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station, the licensing authority, subject to other provisions of Chapter III, by an order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same.”
It also deserves noting that the Bench notes in para 14 that, “Section 14 deals with refusal of licences. The same reads as under :-
14. Refusal of licences.―(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant―
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,―
(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe—
(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or
(2) to be of unsound mind, or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
A perusal of Section 14(1)(b)(ii) would show that a licence in any case other than the cases of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition under Chapter-II, where the licensing authority, if it deems necessary for security of the public peace or for public safety, can refuse to grant such licence. A careful reading of Section 13 and 14 would show that the licensing authority has a discretion under Section 13 to grant licence or to refuse on the basis of an inquiry as it may deem necessary and on the report received under Sub Section 2 of Section 13. However, in Section 14, the licensing authority is not left with any option except to refuse such an application if it falls within the categories as mentioned therein. The aforesaid interpretation is being made taking into consideration the fact that Sub Section 2A of Section 13 only requires the licensing authority to pass an order in writing either to grant or to refuse the same. However, Section 14 starts with “notwithstanding clause” giving override effect to the mandate of Section 13 by using the word “shall”. It is thus seen that if the applicant falls in any of the categories mentioned in Section 14, the licensing authority is not left with any option to exercise the discretion for grant of licence under Section 13.”
Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 15 that, “The petitioner is already in possession of a gun licence but he has not disclosed any justified reason as to why second licence is required by him to carry another weapon like Revolver/Pistol. 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.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench expounds in para 16 specifying that, “The right to bear arms is completely different in India when this right is compared to the United States of America (USA) and other countries’ like United Kingdom (UK). In USA, the right to bear arms refers to people’s right to self defence and it has a constitutional recognition under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment empowers the citizens of USA to retaliate against any tyrannical threat thereby employing self defence as a primary justification for keeping the weapon/gun. However, this law is also not absolute in the United States. It is also subject to scrutiny and reasonable restrictions by the United States. 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.”
While citing recent and relevant case laws, the Bench then postulates in para 17 stating that, “Right to own a firearm is not a fundamental right in India. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 12831/2022) decided on 13.02.2023 has held as under:-
“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”.”
As things stands, the Bench points out in para 18 that, “Arms licence is a creation of statute and the Licensing Authority is vested with the discretion as to granting or not granting of such licence, which would depend upon the facts and situation in each case.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 19 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment mandating that, “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. The object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapon is available to a citizen for self-defence but it does not mean that every individual should be given a licence to possess weapon. We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves. 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.”
Equally significant is what is then articulated in para 20 stating that, “Here in the instant case the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Licensing authority and the appellate Authority as to why the second weapon licence is required by him to carry Revolver/Pistol, more particularly when he is already in possession of a gun licence. The petitioner has 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.”
Truth be told, the Bench then hastens to add in para 21 noting that, “The order relied by the petitioner in the case of Bheema Ram (Supra) is not applicable in the present case because looking to the nature of the business carried out by the said Bheema Ram (Supra), the second weapon and its licence was required by him. But herein this case, no justified reasons have been assigned by the petitioner as to why he needs second licence to carry Pistol/Revolver, specially when he is already in possession of a weapon licence to carry 12 bore gun.”
Quite ostensibly, the Bench then deemed it fit to hold in para 22 that, “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.”
Resultantly, the Bench then holds in para 23 that, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition stands dismissed.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by holding in para 24 that, “Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has made it indubitably clear that arguing that the first licensed firearm that is a 12 bore gun is difficult for the petitioner who is serving in the police department to carry due to the big size cannot be a ground to seek license for another weapon. Notably, the Bench also made it crystal clear that unless justified reason is forwarded by the petitioner on the need for a second licensed weapon, the same cannot be granted. We thus see that as the petitioner had failed to convince the Bench on the dire need for a second licensed weapon, the same was denied by the Bench as we see in this leading case! Very rightly so!
Author Bio
