'Sombre Moment In Judicial Chronicles': Allahabad HC On Young Advocate Carrying Firearm Inside Courtroom For Life Protection
The Allahabad High Court held that it is obligatory for the licensing authority under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 to revoke or suspend a license, whenever there is a threat to Public Peace or Public Safety. The High Court also barred Lawyers/ Litigants from carrying arms inside court premises across UP.The Court has held that lawyers and litigants cannot be permitted to carry...
The Allahabad High Court held that it is obligatory for the licensing authority under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 to revoke or suspend a license, whenever there is a threat to Public Peace or Public Safety. The High Court also barred Lawyers/ Litigants from carrying arms inside court premises across UP.
The Court has held that lawyers and litigants cannot be permitted to carry arms inside the court premises as would be clearly a threat to public peace or public safety in the Court premises and adversely affect the administration of justice. Arms license of any person other than that of armed forces on duty in the Court premises, found to carry arms inside the Court premises shall be cancelled.
While dealing with a case of cancellation of the arms license of a young lawyer, Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed
“It is a sombre moment in the judicial chronicles when a lawyer, having practiced for a mere two years, harbors the misguided notion that wielding arms within the courtroom is essential for professional success. This sentiment reflects a concerning departure from the principles of legal practice, undermining the integrity and decorum of the judicial process. Such beliefs run counter to the foundations of a fair and just legal system, emphasizing the need for a re-evaluation of values within the legal profession.”
Factual Background
The petitioner, enrolled as an advocate in 2018, was charged with offence under Section 188 IPC (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) read with Section 30 (Punishment for contravention of licence or rule) of The Arms Act, 1959 for carrying arms in Court premises.
Though a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, he never replied. Taking note of general directions issued by the High Court on 02.01.2020 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2436 of 2019 In Re Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of U.P., the licensing authority proceeded to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.
In appeal, the petitioner pleaded that he was unaware that carrying an armed license was not permitted in court premises, and would not do so in future. He also pleaded that he was singled out for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of his arms license. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, the appeal was dismissed. It was also stated that he was facing a criminal trial.
Petitioner challenged the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that the right to keep arms is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, necessary for the preservation of life, liberty and property. It was argued that being a practising advocate, petitioner's life was in danger due to
“annoyance of parties to litigation.” It was contended that there was no threat to public peace or public safety to cancel the arms license of the petitioner.
Counsel for the State argued that the petitioner claiming to be a young lawyer has no respect for upholding the law as he was carrying a firearm in the court premises and did not reply to the show cause notice issued by the licensing authority. It was argued that the petitioner had accepted the charges made out in the charge-sheet, and cannot be permitted to claim negative equality by arguing that he was singled out.
It was further contended that grant of arms license is a privilege and not a right. The license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled in terms of the mandate of the Arms Act as well as the General Rules (Civil) and the general directions issued by the High Court.
High Court Verdict
Analysing the Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder, the Court held that under Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 32 of the Arms Rules 2016, carrying a firearm in a firearm-free zone is strictly prohibited and can lead to an additional ground to revocation of the license and seizure of firearm in addition to the penalty prescribed under the Act.
The Court also observed that Rule 614-A of General Rules (Civil) which regulates the working of civil courts in the State prohibits any person, other than police personnel on duty, from carrying arms (as defined in Arms Act) within court premises. The Court observed that the restriction applies to the entire court premises barring the residential quarters of officers/staff.
Accordingly, the Court framed three issues:
I. Whether right to carry arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
II. Whether carrying of arms in Court premises is permissible by the lawyers who claim that law profession is typical and is challenging due to the annoyance of parties to litigation?
III. Whether the carrying of arms in Court premises can lead to cancellation of arms license under Section 17 read with the Arms Rules?
Relying on the full bench decisions of Allahabad High Court in Kailash Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors and Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., Justice Bhatia held that “arms license is merely a privilege granted by the State and is not a Right and right to carry arms is certainly not a fundamental right much less a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Regarding the second issue, the Court held that Rule 614-A of General Rules (Civil) bars not only lawyers but every member of the public from carrying arms within Court premises which is not limited only to Court building but the entire premises.
Deprecating the thinking of young lawyers stressing on carrying a firearm due to the nature of the profession, the Court held that
“The young professional needs to be reminded that the legal profession is a noble profession and has continued to be so since ages; the worth of a lawyer flows from his pen, extremely hard work and his understanding of law and not from the barrel of a gun as is the impression carried by the young professional, the petitioner herein.”
The Court held that young professionals, like the petitioner, who are entering the legal profession need serious counselling to get over the notion that a firearm is required to protect them in the profession. The Court further observed
“This also highlights that the legal profession is being crowded by persons who are not undergoing any systematic training, which was earlier provided informally through chamber affiliations; this aspect is within the domain of Bar Council and the Bar Council is advised to redress this aspect through effective ways and means after discussion.”
The Court held that the word “may” in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act is a combination of power coupled with duty. Read with the Statement and Objects of the Arms Act, the licensing authority under Section 17(3)(b) has the power to revoke license for 'security of the public peace' or for 'public safety'.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., the Court held that State is under a positive obligation to maintain law and order to enable all persons to enjoy their rights under Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The interpretation granting discretion to the licensing authority to revoke firearm license in presence of threat to public safety will lead to grave consequence, held the Court.
The Court further laid down guidelines to be followed regarding cases of firearms in Court premises.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to Bar Council of India and Bar Council of the State for taking steps for sensitizing lawyers for not carrying arms in the Court premises.
Case Title: Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 2461 of 2023]