Arms licence cannot be denied solely for lack of a specific threat, Patna High Court says in ordering fresh review of applicant’s case

The petitioner, a contractor and agriculturist, applied for a non-prohibited-bore rifle licence in 2022, citing the safety of his life and property.

The police and other officials recommended or forwarded his application to the District Magistrate, but the District Magistrate rejected it on the grounds that relevant documents and a “special recommendation” had not been provided.

The petitioner had been acquitted in a 2009 criminal case and was later named as the victim of a firearm attack in a 2023 case.

His statutory appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner.

He then sought judicial review of both decisions.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s rejection of the arms-licence application was lawful when it relied on the stated deficiencies without adequately considering the verification reports and relevant circumstances on record.

2. Whether the Divisional Commissioner’s dismissal of the appeal could stand when it did not address the relevant material or provide adequate reasons.

The Court considered Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Rule 12(3) and Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, in assessing the grounds for refusing a licence.

It stated that an arms licence is a statutory privilege, not a fundamental right, but that licensing decisions must remain within statutory limits and be based on objective, recorded reasons rather than vague allegations or caprice.

It further stated that mere registration of an FIR is generally insufficient, without more, to justify refusal; police verification and threat assessments must be properly weighed; and an application cannot be denied solely for want of a “specific threat or imminent danger”.

The Court also referred to Rule 10(3) of the Arms Rules, 2016, concerning safety-training requirements, and to Ravi Raj v. The State of Bihar & Ors., L.P.A. Nos. 1228 and 1180 of 2018, reported in PLJR 2019 (4) 273, as cited by the petitioner.

The District Magistrate’s reasons—want of relevant documents and absence of a “special recommendation”—were cryptic, particularly because the application had been recommended by the local police and forwarded through the authorities without an adverse opinion.

The District Magistrate also failed to assess the petitioner’s acquittal in the earlier case and his status as the victim of a firearm attack.

The Commissioner likewise affirmed the rejection without addressing the material on record.

The Court therefore found that both decisions lacked the required objective consideration.

It directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application, taking into account the petitioner’s work, his wife’s position as an elected public representative, the family’s stated need for protection, and the firearm attack recorded in the 2023 case.

The application must be decided within three months from the filing of a copy of the judgment.

The Court allowed the writ petition but directed reconsideration rather than directly granting the licence.