Can Members Of Rifle Association Be Permitted To Have More Than Two Guns At A Time? Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment

The Delhi High Court has reserved judgment in a writ petition raising a question as to whether a member of the Rifle Association is permitted to have more than two guns at a time. The question came up for consideration before Justice Yashwant Varma in view of a petition challenging the order of Joint Commissioner of Police Licensing, Delhi directing a member of the Association to surrender one of his three guns in accordance with the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had acquired a firearm license and is a life member of the National and State Rifles Associations. His interest in shooting resulted him to acquire a .22 bore target pistol in addition to the .22 Rifle and .32 revolver already endorsed on his license. On 13.12.2019, the Arms Act, 1959 came to be amended through the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 and reduced the number of firearms a person could bear from three to two. Following this, the Joint Commissioner sent an email to the petitioner directing him to surrender one of his firearms.

The petitioner raised three contentions before High Court:

First, he stated that there exists no provision in the Arms Act, 1959, to enable retrospective operation of an amendment so as to take away rights already vested with a licensee to hold three weapons under the unamended Act. Thus, he stated that the amendment to the Act did not apply to the petitioner at all.

Second, the petitioner contended that no grounds were disclosed in the objects and reasons in the Amendment of 2019 regarding the requirement to suddenly decrease the number of arms that a license holder could own and possess from three to two. Thus, the amendment was without any logical basis and had no nexus with any known intelligible reason or purpose which the amendment sought to achieve.

Finally, he stated that the order of the respondents was incorrect as per Section 3(3) of the Act. Section 3(3) of the Act states that sub-section (2) of Section 3, which prohibits possession of more than two firearms at a time, shall not apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. The petitioner thus stated that the respondent's action were negating the exception carved out under section 3(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, and were therefore ultra vires the Act itself.

He argued that the Act clearly envisages different categories of license holders and the Amendment was passed only with respect to the general category license holders covered under section 3(2) and not category under section 3(3). Thus, the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary in that different and distinct category of license holders were sought to be treated similarly, abridging the rights of license holders who were part of a special category.

The counsel for respondents argued that this was a very serious issue regarding security of the nation and that the petitioner had wrongly read and misconceived Section 3 of the Act which was equally applicable to all citizens of the country.

The court enquired if the Petitioner was covered by Section 3(2) of the Act, to which the respondents replied in an affirmative. Respondents further submitted that the exemption provided under Section 3(3) was applicable for the Association and not an individual.

While noting the arguments of the parties, the court observed that "If we accept the submission of the petitioner, members of Rifle Association would not have a cap over the number of weapons that they can possess."

CASE TITLE: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA