'Lackadaisical Approach In Implementing Arms Act' : Supreme Court Forms Committee In Each State & UT To Curb Illegal Gun Menace

The Supreme Court recently constituted a Committee in each State as well as Union Territories after it found that the proliferation of factories, and workshops producing unlicensed arms, which are outside the regulatory framework, resulted in crimes against the Society as well as against the State. It also found that there is a "lackadaisical approach" in the implementation of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.

In light of this, the Court observed that there is a need for strict monitoring of the manufacture, possession, sale, transportation etc., of the unlicensed arms by the State.

Earlier, the Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the aspect regarding the menace of unlicensed firearms and directed the State respondent to file an affidavit regarding the "number of cases it has registered under the Arms Act or under any other law enabling it to do so for the possession and use or any other aspect relating to unlicensed fire arms".

The Court appointed senior counsel S. Nagamuthu as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. He filed suggestions based on the responses received from the States, UTs and the Union of India on October 29, 2023.  

As per the Union of India's affidavit dated September 14, 2023, the police and the public order are the State subjects. Therefore, it is the primary responsibility of the States/Union Territories concerned to enforce the above regulatory provisions and to curb illegal possession and trade in firearms. It was stated that the National Investigation Agency is also actively investigating and taking action against illegal arms.

On February 12, 2024, the Union of India filed another affidavit stating that to curb the use of illegal arms and streamline the of process obtaining licenses for the lawful use of arms and ammunition, several amendments have been made including the one made in 2019, the punishment was enhanced, and new offences were introduced to create a robust licensing and regulatory procedure. 

On November 7, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal found that despite the existing laws, and rules made thereunder, as well as there being a regulatory framework, the implementation remains "ineffective" inasmuch as "the proliferation of 'factories' and 'workshops' for the manufacture of unlicensed arms and ammunition, their sale, transportation, possession and use in crime is on the rise".

The Court also flagged that apart from local production, "smuggling of arms and ammunition used for crime against society and the State is another matter of concern".

Therefore, the Court deemed fit to appoint a Committee of the following members: 

i. Chief Secretary-Chairperson of the Committee.

ii. Home Secretary- Member.

iii. Director General/ Inspector General of

Police.

iv. Law Secretary.

v. One expert in the field of ballistics to be nominated by the Chief Secretary.

The mandate of the Committee is to submit an action plan within 10 weeks on the following:

i. To formulate an action plan for the implementation of the Act and for rules made thereunder in the respective State/UT.

ii. Inspection and audit of the existing licensed as well as unlicensed factories/workshops dealing with arms and ammunition through the notified authorities or officers.

iii. To secure the data with regard to manufacture, sale, transportation of illegal arms and ammunition.

iv. Steps to be taken with regard to prevention of smuggling of illegal arms and ammunition.

v. A study to be conducted on the use of illegal arms and ammunition in crime against society and against the State and steps for its prevention.

vi. Any other aspect that the Committee may think it just and proper to delve upon.

Case Details: Rajendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022 

Click Here To Read Order

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885

Appearances: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu and Adv. Anish R. Shah (amicus curiae); Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR; Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Aravindh S., AOR; Prafull Bharat, Sr. Adv.; Samir Ali Khan, AOR; Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR; Shuvodeep Roy, AOR; Nishanth Patil, AOR; Sameer Abhyankar, AOR; Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv.; Jayant Mohan, AOR; Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR; K. Enatoli Sema, AOR; Prerna Singh, Adv.;Swati Ghildiyal, AOR; Raghvendra Kumar, AOR; Abhishek Pandey, Adv; K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G.;Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv; Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR; V. N. Raghupathy, AOR; Akshat Kumar, AOR;Vmz Chambers, AOR; Sunny Choudhary, AOR; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G; Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv.; Anando Mukherjee, AOR; Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR; Manish Kumar, AOR; Mohini Priya, AOR; Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv; Bharat Bagla, Adv; Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR; Parth Awasthi, Adv;Mohd. Irshad, AAG; Ritika Jhurani, Adv./AOR; Akshay Amritanshu, AOR; Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR; and Bijender Chaudhry, Adv (Respondents)