Carrying weapon now a status symbol; no fundamental right to bear arms: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently remarked that the trend of weapon possession among people is driven by the desire to show it off as a ‘status symbol’ than for self defence purposes [Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of Rajasthan]

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that carrying and possessing firearms is only a matter of statutory privilege.

No citizen has a blanket right to carry a firearm as it is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 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,” it added.

The observations were made while dealing with a police official’s plea against rejection of his request for grant of license for his pistol.

Opposing the plea, the State said the official in his private capacity already has a licensed 12 bore gun and he has not satisfied the authorities about the need of second weapon.

It was the petitioner’s argument that the 12 bore gun, a gift from his father, is too big in size to carry. 

The Court, however, said the petitioner had failed to disclose a justified reason for requiring a second license.

“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 ruled.

The Court then compared the gun laws of the United States (US) and India. In the US, the right to bear arms refers to people’s right to self-defence and it has a constitutional recognition under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, it noted.

“This amendment empowers the citizens of USA to retaliate against any tyrannical threat thereby employing self-defence as a primary justification for keeping the weapon/gun. However, this law is also not absolute in the United States. It is also subject to scrutiny and reasonable restrictions by the United States,” it added.

In contrast, the Court said the right to own a firearm is not a fundamental right in India.

“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,” it added.

In the present case, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to make out a special case that his life is under serious threat and for that he needs two different licences, to carry two different firearms.

“In the facts of the case, after having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition, as the refusal to grant second licence for Revolver/Pistol is well reasoned by the respondents,” the judge said while dismissing the plea.

Advocate Mahendra Sharma represented the petitioner.

Advocate Suman Shekhawat represented the State.

[Read Judgment]