Lawyers Cannot Carry Guns In Court Premises; There's No Fundamental Right To Carry Firearms: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that lawyers cannot carry guns in court premises.
The court observed that the right to carry firearms is not a fundamental right and arms license can be cancelled if lawyers or litigants are found carrying guns in court premises.
The court held thus while it dismissed a Writ Petition by an Advocate challenging the cancellation of his arms license.
Referring to earlier two full bench judgments, the Court observed: "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."
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, “no one including any litigant or a lawyer, can carry any arms in the Court premises and that succeeding in law profession certainly does not require support of the barrel of a gun".
Advocate Kuldeep Kaur appeared for the Petitioner.
A writ petition was filed by Amandeep Singh before the High Court challenging the cancellation of his arms license by the Licensing Authority. The Petitioner, a young advocate enrolled in 2018, was charged under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA) for carrying arms on court premises. After failing to respond to a show-cause notice, his license was cancelled. He had appealed the decision but his appeal was rejected.
The Court framed the following issues:
“ A. Whether right to carry arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as pleaded by the petitioner?
B. Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises is permissible by the lawyers who claim that law profession is typical and is challenging due to annoyance of parties to litigation?
C. Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises can lead to cancellation of the arms license in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 with the rules framed under the Arms Act?”
The Bench emphasized that the AA aims to regulate firearm possession, particularly in Chapter III, which focuses on license provisions. Licenses are granted based on a police report and inquiry, with two main categories specified in Section 13(3) for various purposes such as protection, sport, and target practice. Section 14(1)(b) outlines criteria for refusing other licenses. The court also highlighted that Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (Rules), prohibits carrying firearms in firearm-free zones, with penalties including license revocation and firearm seizure. Civil Courts in Uttar Pradesh, governed by the General Rules (Civil), imposed restrictions through Rule 614-A.
The Bench noted that explanation II to Rule 614A broadens the definition of Court premises, encompassing all lands, buildings, and structures within court limits, except residential quarters, imposing restrictions on carrying arms throughout the entire court premises.
Addressing whether lawyers can carry arms in court premises, the Court noted that the answer is clearly negative. The grant of an arms license is deemed a privilege, subject to various restrictions outlined in the AA and Rules, specifically Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil). This rule explicitly prohibits anyone, including lawyers, from carrying or possessing arms on the court premises, with an extended definition beyond courtrooms.
The Bench observed that carrying arms on court premises is prohibited not only for lawyers but also for any member of the public unless they belong to the police force and are on duty. The Court criticized the idea that wielding arms within the courtroom is essential for professional success, stating that such beliefs undermine the principles of legal practice, integrity, and decorum of the judicial process.
The Court disapproved of a young lawyer's belief that success in the legal profession is linked to carrying firearms. The Court noted that the nobility of the legal profession, historically built on a lawyer's knowledge, hard work, and legal acumen—not on possessing a gun. The Bench observed that the counselling for young professionals, including the petitioner, to correct such misconceptions. The Bench raised concerns about individuals entering the legal profession without proper training and recommends that the Bar Council address this issue through effective means and discussions.
In the context of Issue C, the Court noted that Rule 614-A of General Rules (Civil) explicitly prohibited carrying arms on court premises. Section 17(3) of the AA empowers the licensing authority to revoke a license for various reasons, including concerns about public peace or safety. The Court held that 'may' in Section 17(3)(b) should be interpreted as a power coupled with a duty. The Bench emphasized that if conditions warranting license revocation exist, the licensing authority must suspend or revoke the license. The interpretation aligns with the objectives of the Arms Act, ensuring a balance between citizens' rights and maintaining law and order.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that "public peace" and "public safety" should be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) and Rule 32 of the Rules, both of which restrict carrying arms in public places and specifically prohibit it in court premises. The enactment of Rule 614-A aims to provide a secure atmosphere in district courts, ensuring public safety and an environment free from fear of the administration of justice. The Bench reiterated that access to justice is a fundamental right, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative dimensions.
The Bench held that permitting lawyers or litigants, other than armed forces members on duty, to carry arms in court premises would constitute a clear threat to public peace and safety. Such permission not only adversely affects litigants and the credibility of the justice system but also undermines the fundamental features of the Indian Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Amandeep Singh v State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others (2023:AHC-LKO:83692)
