Lawyers cannot claim right to own firearm licence merely because they are appearing in criminal cases: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that all lawyers appearing on the criminal side for the accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own a firearm licence [Adv Shiv Kumar vs Union of India and Ors.]..Justice Pratibha M Singh said that that if all criminal lawyers claimed the right to own arms licence, it could result in issuance of arms licenses indiscriminately.."Arms licence is a creation of the statute and the licensing authority is vested with the discretion whether to grant or not grant such a licence, depending upon the fact situation in each case. All lawyers/advocates who are appearing on the criminal side for the accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own an arms licence, inasmuch as this could result in issuance of arms licenses indiscriminately," the Court observed..The Court was hearing a plea by advocate Shiv Kumar challenging an order of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi which rejected his application seeking a firearm license.Appearing in person, he relied on two judgments, one of the Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar v. State and the other of the Gujarat High Court in Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher v. State of Gujarat, to argue that if none of the grounds under Section 14 (Refusal of licences) of the Arms Act are established, the arms license would have to be issued..On the other hand, the respondents, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Yashpal Singh v. Licensing Authority, argued that there can be no right to have an arms license, which is in effect a privilege..The Court observed that the order passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority showed that proper and due consideration was given to various facts placed by the petitioner..Further, it observed that the perceived weakness of the State, which was one of the grounds which the petitioner urged for seeking the arms license, if accepted, would result in recognition of a right to own a firearm.This recognition leading to issuance of a licence and unbridled owning of fire arms, could also pose a threat to the safety and security of the other citizens, the Court underscored..The Court noted that the licensing authority has to assess the threat perception and the reasons for request for a licence which was been given by the concerned applicant. In that background, it said that an application by an advocate merely based on the ground of appearance on behalf of accused persons would not be sufficient to grant an arms license..Hence, the Court determined that the assailed order did not warrant interference and rejected the plea..Advocates Vikrant N Goyal, Santosh Kr Tripathi, Arun Panwar, Pradyumn Rao and Mahak Rankawat appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]