Arms License Should Be Granted Only Where There Is Necessity: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Police Official's Plea
The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that an arms license should not be granted based on personal desire or convenience but only when there is a genuine need for self-defense.
The case arose when the police official, who already possessed a licensed 12-bore gun (a gift from his father), sought a second license for a smaller firearm, a revolver or pistol, arguing that his existing gun was too large to carry conveniently. However, the State rejected his request, pointing out that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient justification for needing a second firearm, especially given that his existing weapon was legally licensed.
A Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that owning and carrying firearms is a matter of statutory privilege, not a fundamental right. The Court stated that no citizen in India has an unrestricted right to carry or possess a firearm, as it is not protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court said, “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. 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,”
Advocate Mahendra Sharma appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Suman Shekhawat appeared for the Respondent.
In its ruling, the Court noted that the size of the petitioner’s current weapon was not a valid ground for requesting a second firearm. It added, “This cannot be a ground to claim licence for second weapon that the first weapon i.e. 12 bore gun is big in size and Revolver/Pistol is small in size,”
The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not demonstrated a legitimate or urgent need for additional weaponry. Moreover, it stated that the Arms Act was designed to ensure that weapons are only issued where there is a clear necessity, and not based on personal preference or convenience.
The Court also made a comparative reference to the gun laws in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, primarily as a means of self-defense against threats. However, the Court pointed out that even in the U.S., this right is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions and scrutiny. In contrast, in India, the Court added, “Arms licence is a creation of statute and the Licensing Authority is vested with the discretion as to granting or not granting of such licence, which would depend upon the facts and situation in each case,”
The High Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish a specific threat to his life that would justify the need for a second firearm. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the licensing authority to deny the second firearm license.
Cause Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
