Criminal Family History Irrelevant For Sports Quota Arms License Applications: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court expressed strong disapproval of the State Government's decision to deny an arms license to a distinguished shooter, who has represented the country in numerous competitions based on concerns that the petitioner might engage in criminal activities due to her family's history of involvement in crime.
The case involved a well-known national shooter whose application for an arms license had been rejected by the State Government and the district magistrate. Consequently, she had to repeatedly seek court permission to extend her provisional license for every competition or championship.
The petitioner had approached the court to resolve her situation in connection with the 67th National Shooting Championship, emphasizing that she should not have to repeatedly appeal to the court.
A Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta said, “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.”
Advocate Vijay Bishnoi appeared for the petitioner and AAG S Ladrecha appeared for the Respondent.
The Court deemed the State Government's refusal of the license to be not only arbitrary but also a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation. Additionally, the Court noted that denying the license infringed upon her rights under Article 14, as it discriminated against her solely because of her familial connections.
The Court reacted with astonishment at the AAG’s arguments, labeling the concerns as unfounded and inappropriate. The Court added, “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.”
The Court also referred to Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which outlines the conditions under which a license may be refused. The Court pointed out that the refusal must be justified for reasons pertaining to public peace or safety. The Court found that the reasoning provided by the State was largely speculative, lacking any substantial evidence. It stated, “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’.”
The Court concluded that without any criminal record on the part of the petitioner, there was no valid reason to deny her license, especially given her status as a respected shooter applying for a sports license.
Ultimately, the Court directed the issuance of the arms license to her.
Cause Title: Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors., [2024:RJ-JD:39660]
Appearance:
Respondents: AAG S Ladrecha, Advocates Deepak Suthar and Ravindra Jala
