Denying Arms License To Renowned Shooter Based On Family's Criminal Background Is Shocking, Violative Of Articles 14 And 21: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court expressed shock over the State Government's decision to deny an Arms license to a renowned shooter, who had won many laurels for the country, on the grounds that there was every likelihood of the petitioner ending up in criminal activities since her family was also involved in criminal offences.

“In the opinion of this Court while deciding rights of a citizen more particularly, in relation to issuance of license, going by the spirit of the act, own conduct and candidates' criminal antecedents alone are to be seen. The family history of the applicant, becomes absolutely irrelevant, more particularly, when the application is for license under sports quota…The petitioner can neither be cursed for her father's culpability nor can the State tether her with her father's acts or crimes to continue all through her life, though she had no role to play.”

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that sports were like an occupation taken part in either for fame or pleasure, hence the act of the State Government of refusing the license was not only arbitrary but also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, denying such a license also impinged her rights under Article 14 since she was being discriminated against solely due to her family background.

The petition was filed by a renowned national-level shooter whose arms license was being rejected by the State Government and the district Magistrate, and now for every competition/championship, she had to file an application before the Court seeking an extension of her provisional license.

The current petition was filed by her to participate in the 67^th National Shooting Championship, however, the Court deemed it appropriate to decide the petition finally since she could not be compelled to approach the Court time and again.

It was the case of the petitioner that the rejection of her arms license was solely based on the whims and fancies of the licensing authority and the family background of the petitioner. It was argued that neither any criminal case was pending against the petitioner, nor had she indulged in any sort of crime ever, hence there was no reason to infer that granting her license would pose a threat to security of public peace or safety.

As opposed to this, AAG, appearing for the State, argued that the petitioner belonged to a family of “hardened criminals” who had indulged in a number of heinous offences, and if a license was issued to the petitioner, there was every likelihood of her too entering into criminal activities.

Expressing extreme shock over the arguments of the AAG, the Court opined the apprehensions expressed to be not only baseless but also uncalled for.

“This Court is shocked to find the apathy of the respondent No.2 - the petitioner, a renowned shooter, instead of being recognized by her own credentials and the qualities which she possesses, is being identified by her family background and being branded a 'pseudo criminal', simply because her father and uncle (Tauji) happened to be involved in various offences.”

Furthermore, while referring to Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which provides for the refusal of licenses, the Court opined that the Section suggested that the license could be refused when the licensing authority deemed it necessary for the security of public peace or safety, and made the following observations,

“The observations made by the respondents in the order impugned are firstly based on conjunctures and surmises – without there being any material and secondly, such apprehension cannot be construed to be a circumstance necessary to refuse to grant license. The expression 'deems it necessary' has different connotation and meaning than the usual expression – 'deems it appropriate or expedient'”.

In the background of this analysis, the Court held that in the absence of any criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it was not necessary to refuse the license when the license was asked for sports, by a renowned shooter.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Court directed the issuance of a license to the petitioner.

Title: Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 290

Click Here To Read/Download Order