Karnataka High Court upholds exemption given to Kodavas to carry firearms without licence

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the exemption granted to Kodavas from the requirement to obtain a licence to carry and possess fire arms under the Arms Act, 1959 [Capt. Chetan YK (Retd) v. Union of India]..The order was passed by Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice SS Magadum stated,"The Kodava community which is a marshal community is enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence and Jumma tenure holders are enjoying the exemption since pre-independence period. They have rightly been granted exemption for a period of ten years, it is not the case they have been granted exemption indefinitely. Exemption granted is subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the Constitutional validity of the notification is upheld in the petition.".Adding that the said exemption was permissible under Article 14, the Court added, "In the instant case, the documents on record reflect that Kodavas race have been considered to be a marshal race from as early as 1890, and they are enjoying exemption since then.".Taking note of the objects and reasons of the Arms Act, the Court opined that the weapons were provided for self-defence. "We have taken in view the statement of objects and reasons of the Arms Act, the weapons are made available to people for self-defence, unless their antecedent doesn't entitle them for keeping such weapons. Hence the question of interference does not arise.".The matter was reserved for judgment last week. The Court had issued notice in the matter in July..The Court was hearing a plea questioning the decision of the Central government to grant exemption to Kodavas and Jamma landholders in Kodagu district from the requirement to obtain a license to carry and possess firearms under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959..The petition was filed by an ex-army officer Captain Chethan YK, who said that the Centre had decided to continue the British-era rule of exempting Kodavas and Jamma landholders from obtaining licence for firearms such as pistols, revolvers and double-barrelled shotguns. The exemption was given for 10 years, till 2029.Such an exemption is unconstitutional as it creates differentiation based on race, caste and ancestral land tenure, he contended..Advocate BV Vidyulatha, appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that only the Kodava and Jamma landholders were granted the exemption from carrying firearms without a licence."Why differentiate a class from the others when the language, rituals, culture , geographical area is the same? There is no requirement to give preference for a class. I am not asking for abolition of gun culture, just that we have to relook certain privileges only for certain class or caste," she submitted..Additional Solicitor General MB Nargund, appearing for the Central government, had questioned the maintainability of the plea.It was contended that since the fundamental rights of the petitioner are not violated and since the petitioner is not challenging Section 41 of the Indian Arms Act (Power to exempt), the petition does not deserve to be entertained..Nargund also said that Kodavas are a distinct community and explained the reasons behind the exemptions granted to them to hold firearms without license."They don’t have classes. The caste system is not prevalent in this particular tribe. What the Kodavas worship are Cauvery mata (River Cauvery), Arms and they do one pooja. They don’t have priestly classes also among them.”.It was also submitted that the notification of October 29, 2019, was issued after a review, which took into consideration the observations of various stakeholders and the State Home Department, offices of Deputy Commissioner, District Magistrate of Kodagu district and a report submitted by the local police authority.The 2019 notification is valid for a period of ten years and was issued after due deliberation and informed opinion, Nargund re-affirmed..Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for an intervenor, concurred with the submissions made by the Union. He opined that negative equality is not the hallmark of Article 19."Since the petitioner did not obtain an exemption to hold firearms without licence, he cannot argue that the exemption given to Kodava community is wrong.".Povaayya further said that certain foreign people, when in India, are given an exemption and they need not require a licence to do so. If the petitioner had an issue with the exemption granted, then he should have challenged Section 41 of the Indian Arms Act, but that is not the case here, it was added..Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for another set of intervenors, had submitted,"Someone will have always be excluded when there is an exemption in a statute. There is a historical reason behind grant of an exemption. Centre made an informed decision in granting exemption in this case. You can’t argue Article 14 here because there is an exemption."