The Delhi High Court has held that the Constitution of India does not recognise any fundamental right to possess firearms and that the grant of an arms licence remains within the executive’s discretionary domain under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking an arms licence.
Background of the Petition
The petitioner, a parking contractor, approached the Court contending that he had faced repeated instances of intimidation and violence at parking sites operated by him. On this basis, he asserted that he was under serious threat and required an arms licence for self-protection.
The licensing authority had declined his application. The petitioner then challenged the refusal before the High Court.
Court’s Findings on Self-Protection and Police Report
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that a general claim of self-protection cannot, by itself, justify the grant of an arms licence—particularly where the local police have not recommended issuance of such licence in terms of Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
The Court noted that Rule 12 obligates the licensing authority to consider the recommendations of the District Magistrate and the report of the concerned police authorities. The authority must also independently satisfy itself, through its own sources, that the applicant genuinely requires a licence.
Justice Kaurav observed that the statutory scheme grants the licensing authority wide discretion in deciding whether to issue a licence. The Rules further prescribe the manner in which such discretion must be exercised, including evaluation of reports from relevant authorities. This discretion, the Court emphasised, falls squarely within the executive’s domain.
The Court stated that it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the executive authority when the latter has acted within the framework of the Act and the Rules.
No Fundamental Right to Possess Firearms
The judgment further clarified that the Constitution does not confer any fundamental right to possess firearms. The Court held that in the present case, the respondent authority had not exceeded its statutory powers. The refusal was based on the police report and aligned with the requirements under Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
Justice Kaurav also cautioned that indiscriminate judicial directions for the issuance of arms licences could lead to disorder in society, which must be avoided.
Law and Order Responsibility of the State
The Court concluded that the mere fact that the petitioner operated parking sites and had encountered certain incidents did not warrant a direction to grant an arms licence. It observed that many similarly situated operators may face occasional untoward events. However, ensuring public safety—including that of the petitioner—remains the responsibility of the State’s law and order machinery.
Case Details
Title: Sh. Sunil Kumar v. Joint Commissioner of Police
