First Firearm 'Difficult To Carry Due To Big Size' Not Ground To Seek License For Another Weapon: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with 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.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the right to bear arms was completely different in India as compared to this...
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with 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.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the right to bear arms was completely different in India as compared to this right in the United Stated of America (“USA”) and United Kingdom (“UK”). It was held that no one had a fundamental right to keep a weapon especially when in today's times its possession had become more of a “show off” and a “status symbol” rather than for self defence.
“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.”
It was the case of the petitioner that he was serving in the police department and had a 12 bore gun that was gifted to him by his father, which was required for safety purposes. The counsel argued that under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Act”) there was no bar provided against possessing two weapons simultaneously and hence the authorities must be directed to grant the additional license to the petitioner for second weapon.
On the contrary, it was argued by the respondents that since the petitioner was already in possession of a gun license, there was no justification available for getting the second license to carry another firearm, merely on the ground that the first gun being big was difficult to carry.
The Court perused the Act and opined that the objects of the Act indicated that the legislature intended to ensure that the weapons for self-defence were available to the citizens having license. However, it was observed that right to own a firearm was not a fundamental right in India as was explicitly ruled in the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Singh v the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court compared the right to bear arms in India and the US and opined that in the US, the right to bear arms referred to people's right to self defence and it had a constitutional recognition under the 2nd amendment which empowered the US citizens to retaliate against any tyrannical threat. However, carrying and possessing firearms in a country was only a matter of statutory privilege and no citizen had a blanket right to carry a firearm.
In this background, the Court held that Arms License was a creation of statute and the Licensing Authority was vested with the discretion to grant or not grant such a license. It was opined that the petitioner had not disclosed any justified reason for wanting a second license and the size of the existing weapon being too big could not be a ground to claim a second arm license.
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner ruling that he failed to make out a special case that his life was under serious threat and for that he needed to carry two different firearms.
Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 341