Absence of specific threat perception cannot be a ground to deny arms licence to a clean-antecedent applicant.

The petitioner applied for an arms license in 2011 for N.P. bore rifle, citing professional requirements as a farmer carrying cash and threat to life (his uncle was killed by Naxalites)

Despite a favorable police report in 2015, the District Magistrate (DM), Buxar, rejected the application in 2016

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner remanded the matter in 2019

Following remand, a second favorable police report was submitted, confirming no criminal antecedents and noting that issuance would not pose a threat to social harmony

Nevertheless, the DM rejected the application again on 25.11.2019, claiming the cited threat was old and that proliferation of arms affects "public peace"

The Appellate Authority affirmed this rejection on 20.06.2023

The court primarily applied Section 13 (grant of license) and Section 14 (refusal of license) of the Arms Act, 1959

Section 14(2), which prohibits refusal solely on the ground that the person lacks sufficient property

Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016, specifically sub-rule (3)(a), which mandates the licensing authority to consider the nature of an applicant’s business or profession to assess the "genuine requirement" for protection

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting that while possessing arms is a statutory right, the right to life includes the sense of security over one's body and property

The Court reasoned that the DM's discretion under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) is not "unlimited" and must be exercised judiciously based on objective materials rather than subjective satisfaction

The Court noted that the petitioner’s profession (agriculture) and the need to carry cash were recognized under Rule 12(3)(a) as valid justifications for a license

The Court criticized the DM for ignoring two positive police reports which stated the petitioner posed no threat to public peace

Citing National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2023 data, the Court observed that crimes involving licensed arms are negligible (07 out of 3,972 cases in Bihar), debunking the DM's "vague apprehension" regarding arms proliferation

The Court concluded that "public safety" refers to the safety of the public at large, not a mechanical reason to deny an individual's statutory right

The Court held that the licensing authority cannot apply a "straight-jacket formula" or "blanket denial" without considering the specific trade and profession of the applicant

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Magistrate, Buxar, to consider granting the license to the petitioner in light of the judgment's observations within two months