The Rajasthan High Court recently expressed its dismay at the State government’s decision to deny an arms license to a renowned national shooter, Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan, based solely on her family background [Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan].
The Court held that only the applicant’s criminal antecedents, not those of her family, should be considered in determining eligibility for an arms license.
Justice Dinesh Mehta emphasized that a citizen’s right, particularly in matters concerning the issuance of an arms license, must be based on the individual's own conduct and criminal history. The family background of the applicant becomes irrelevant, especially when the application is made under the sports quota, he added.
"Denial of license to the petitioner amounts to infraction of her rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India also, as the petitioner has been discriminated solely on the ground of her family background. The petitioner can neither be cursed for her father’s culpability nor can the State tether her with her father’s acts or crimes to continue all through her life, though she had no role to play," he observed in the September 24 ruling.
Chauhan had approached the High Court for relief after her application for an arms license was repeatedly denied by both the State government and the district magistrate. As a result, Chauhan had been forced to seek a provisional license before each shooting competition.
Her current petition was filed to participate in the 67th National Shooting Championship, but the court took the opportunity to address the issue comprehensively so that she would not need to approach the Court time and again before each competition.
The Court criticized the apprehensions raised by the district magistrate of Nagaur as "baseless" and "uncalled for." The Court noted that the magistrate had denied Chauhan her legal right to an arms license solely because her father and uncle had criminal records, despite there being no pending case against the Chauhan herself. The Court found this rationale deeply flawed and took exception to the fact that the Chauhan's personal achievements and conduct had been overshadowed by her family’s history.
“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," Justice Mehta observed.
The Court highlighted that under the relevant provisions of law, a license can only be refused when the licensing authority deems it “necessary” to do so. In this case, however, there were no criminal allegations or charges against Chauhan herself. Therefore, the Court held that it was unjust to deny her an arms license merely because of her family's past.
“Taking part in sports is like an occupation, maybe for pleasure or fame. Hence, the impugned action on the part of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also impinges upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” the Court concluded.
The Court observed that Chauhan had been unfairly discriminated against solely based on her family background, without any fault of her own. It made it clear that such discrimination was unacceptable, especially when Chauhan had proven herself in the field of sports.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to issue an arms license to Chauhan within ten days of the order, in accordance with the law.
Chauhan was represented by Advocate Vijay Bishnoi, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General SS Ladrecha, assisted by Advocates Deepak Suthar and Ravindra Jala.
[Read order]