Haryana arms-licence authorities directed to record and communicate reasons instead of issuing one-word SARAL portal rejections

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of petitioner no. 2’s application for an arms licence.

The application was shown as “rejected” on the SARAL portal without identifying the deciding authority or recording any reasons.

The Court directed the District Magistrate to explain the mechanism for processing arms-licence applications, but it was subsequently clarified that, following Jhajjar’s declaration as a Police Commissionerate, the competent authority was the Commissioner of Police, Jhajjar, or the authority designated under law.

The State’s affidavit disclosed that applications were being processed through reports of the SHO and Assistant Commissioner of Police, without the licensing authority passing a reasoned speaking order.

Thereafter, a fresh reasoned order rejecting the application was passed after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, and the Commissioner of Police issued an office order requiring reasons for rejection to be recorded and communicated to applicants.

The Court primarily applied Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which requires the licensing authority to record reasons in writing when refusing to grant an arms licence.

The Court also relied on the general administrative-law requirement that statutory authorities exercise jurisdiction themselves and pass reasoned, speaking orders, particularly where the decision affects a person’s legal rights and the availability of appellate or other remedies.

The decision was considered within the framework of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the principles of transparency, fairness, and natural justice.

The Court further referred to the Haryana Government notification dated 8 March 2024, issued under Section 2(1)(d) of the Arms Act, appointing the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) to exercise the powers and functions of the District Magistrate under the Act within the Jhajjar Police Commissionerate.

The Court found that merely marking the application as “rejected” on the SARAL portal did not constitute a lawful decision under Section 14(3), because it neither disclosed the competent decision-maker nor stated the reasons for refusal.

The affidavits further revealed that the licensing authority was not independently exercising its statutory jurisdiction and that applications were being allowed or rejected on the basis of subordinate reports without a reasoned speaking order.

Although the original process was procedurally defective, the authorities subsequently passed a fresh reasoned order after hearing the petitioners and issued directions requiring clear, specific, relevant, and communicated reasons in every case of rejection.

The Court considered these corrective measures sufficient to address the procedural shortcomings and declined to issue any further directions on the individual application at that stage.

In view of the subsequent reasoned order and corrective office directions, the writ petition was closed without further relief.

The petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the subsequent rejection order—identified in the judgment as the order dated 3 September 2026, Annexure R-1—through the appropriate remedy under the Arms Act.

The Registrar General was directed to circulate the judgment and the Commissioner of Police’s office order to all Police Commissioners in Haryana for consideration while framing an appropriate SOP for processing arms-licence applications received through the SARAL portal.