Arms Licence Decisions Must Objectively Consider Occupational Threats, Not Merely Police Recommendations.

The petitioner, who operated a State Bank of India customer service point and regularly handled and transported cash, applied for an arms licence on 8 February 2021.

After the application remained pending, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide it; the District Magistrate rejected it on 17 April 2023, relying on the Superintendent of Police’s non-recommendation.

The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 2 November 2023.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the authorities had failed to consider the threat associated with his profession under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016.

1. Whether the District Magistrate and the Commissioner could reject the arms-licence application without objectively considering the threat perception arising from the petitioner’s cash-handling profession, as contemplated by Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016.

2. Whether the authorities’ reliance on the Superintendent of Police’s non-recommendation, without addressing the petitioner’s circumstances and the favourable assessment of the Station House Officer, rendered the rejection orders unsustainable.

Under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, decisions refusing or revoking a licence must rest on recorded, objective reasons and not vague allegations or arbitrary considerations.

Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016 requires consideration of an applicant’s trade, business or profession when assessing the need for a licence; the court stated that the absence of a specific or imminent threat is not, by itself, a valid ground for rejection.

The court also observed that police reports and threat assessments must be objectively weighed.

It referred to Rule 10(3) concerning safety training, but that point was not material to the dispute.

The District Magistrate rejected the application because the Superintendent of Police had not recommended a licence, while the Commissioner upheld that decision without addressing the threat allegedly arising from the petitioner’s regular movement of cash.

The Court held that the authorities were required to consider the nature of the petitioner’s work and the available threat assessments, including the Station House Officer’s favourable view, rather than treat the absence of the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation as determinative.

Given the petitioner’s clean antecedents and cash-handling work, the impugned decisions did not reflect the objective consideration required by Rule 12(3)(a).

It directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application, taking account of the petitioner’s work involving regular movement of cash and his area of operation, and to decide it within three months of the filing of a copy of the judgment.

The Court directed reconsideration; it did not itself grant an arms licence.