The Allahabad High Court has directed all 75 District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to submit detailed data on firearms held by private individuals. The direction came in Jai Shankar alias Bairistar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others. The Court also raised concerns about the display of weapons on social media platforms.
Justice Vinod Diwakar directed authorities to provide police station-wise data on privately owned firearms. He also sought details of pending applications for grant, renewal, or transfer of arms licences before District Magistrates.
Court Seeks Statewide Details on Private Arms
The Court asked authorities to create a separate category of licence holders with a criminal history of two or more cases. It directed them to prepare detailed records for each such individual.
The Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, or Commissioner of Police in each district must submit this data. They must file personal affidavits confirming its accuracy and completeness.
Allahabad HC Firearms Data and Social Media Concerns
The Court observed that easy access to firearms poses a serious risk to public safety. While the licensing system aims to restrict possession, firearm ownership still carries social value in some areas.
The Court noted that individuals with political ambitions or questionable backgrounds sometimes use licensed weapons to project authority. They also use them to create a sense of dominance.
It further observed that people display firearms on social media, including in reels, to attract attention. According to the Court, such behaviour promotes a culture that glorifies weapons.
The Bench added that influential persons often display weapons in public or online to project strength. In some cases, individuals with criminal backgrounds use licensed arms to build a “strongman” image.
Allahabad HC Firearms Data on Licence Holders
The Court stated that such practices create fear and weaken respect for the rule of law. It said that these trends reduce public confidence in legal institutions.
The Court also highlighted the broader social impact. It pointed to feudal power structures, weak enforcement of norms, and social media influence. It said that these factors together worsen the problem.
Allahabad HC Firearms Data and Public Safety Risks
The Court flagged cases where multiple members of the same family hold separate arms licences. In some cases, individuals also possess more than one weapon.
The Court said such practices require scrutiny. It directed District Magistrates to submit detailed district-wise and police station-wise data.
The data must include the type of weapon, such as rifle, pistol, or revolver. It must also identify cases where multiple family members hold licences.
Case Background
The Court heard a petition challenging the rejection of an arms licence application. The applicant, a gold ornaments seller, claimed that he faced threats but was denied a licence.
The State opposed the plea. It stated that the applicant had a criminal history involving five cases.
The Court also noted delays in the process. The District Magistrate rejected the application after four years. The appellate authority decided the appeal after another three years.
Directions on Delay
The Court directed the District Magistrate of Bhadohi to file a counter affidavit. The affidavit must explain the delay in deciding the licence application.
It also directed the Commissioner or Appellate Authority under the Arms Act, 1959 to file a personal affidavit. The authority must explain why it entertained the delayed appeal. It must also explain why it did not decide the matter within a reasonable time or record findings on limitation.
Questions to the State
The Court noted that similar petitions are increasing. Therefore, it asked the State to clarify several issues related to arms licensing.
These include whether the State has created an Arms Licence Database and what data it maintains. The Court also sought details of any legal or administrative hurdles faced by District Magistrates in implementing Rules 13, 14, and Chapter IX of the Arms Rules, 2016.
Further, the Court asked whether Rule 16 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is being followed. This rule requires real-time electronic updates on the NDAL system. The Court also asked whether the State has framed a comprehensive arms policy or plans to do so.
Also read: Pay Commission Benefits Denied: SC Ruling
