Allahabad High Court: Threat Perception Does Not Guarantee Arms Licence
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the grant of an arms licence is not a fundamental right and cannot be claimed solely based on perceived threats or involvement as a victim in criminal cases. Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed a petition challenging the denial of a firearm licence to a man who cited village rivalry and family assaults as reasons for needing protection. The court emphasized that licensing decisions rest on the competent authority's satisfaction regarding the applicant's suitability, antecedents, and public safety interests. The state opposed the plea, presenting adverse reports that described the petitioner as a land grabber with poor conduct, arguing he sought the licence for social status rather than genuine security needs. The judges found that the district magistrate and appellate authorities had properly considered these negative reports and that their decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The petitioner failed to substantiate claims that the police and revenue reports were incorrect. Consequently, the court held that mere apprehension of danger does not create an indefeasible right to possess a firearm, upholding the rejection of the licence application due to the petitioner's unsuitability.
Wire timeline
Allahabad High Court: Threat Perception Does Not Guarantee Arms Licence
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the grant of an arms licence is not a fundamental right and cannot be claimed solely based on perceived threats or involvement as a victim in criminal cases. Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed a petition challenging the denial of a firearm licence to a man who cited village rivalry and family assaults as reasons for needing protection. The court emphasized that licensing decisions rest on the competent authority's satisfaction regarding the applicant's suitability, antecedents, and public safety interests. The state opposed the plea, presenting adverse reports that described the petitioner as a land grabber with poor conduct, arguing he sought the licence for social status rather than genuine security needs. The judges found that the district magistrate and appellate authorities had properly considered these negative reports and that their decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The petitioner failed to substantiate claims that the police and revenue reports were incorrect. Consequently, the court held that mere apprehension of danger does not create an indefeasible right to possess a firearm, upholding the rejection of the licence application due to the petitioner's unsuitability.
indianexpress