Patna High Court says arms licence cannot be denied solely for lack of a specific threat; orders fresh review of applicant’s FIRs and Sanhas

The petitioner applied for licences for a rifle and a handgun on 16 February 2019, relying on FIRs and Sanhas which, he submitted, evidenced threats to his life and property.

Following a police inquiry, the District Magistrate, Vaishali rejected the application on 29 December 2023, citing the absence of supporting evidence; the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, on 30 May 2024.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the authorities had not considered the FIRs and Sanhas and had relied on a police report not disclosed to him.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s rejection of the arms-licence application was sustainable when the order did not discuss the FIRs and Sanhas relied on by the petitioner and relied on a police report not made available to him.

2. Whether the appellate authority independently and adequately considered the relevant material before affirming the rejection.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for grant of the licences, or instead to reconsideration of his application in accordance with law.

Under the Arms Act, 1959, including Sections 13, 14 and 17, and the Arms Rules, 2016, including Rules 12(3)(a) and 10(3), licensing decisions must be made on an objective assessment of relevant material and supported by recorded reasons; an application cannot be rejected on vague allegations, whim or caprice.

The Court stated that an FIR, without more, is generally insufficient to refuse or cancel a licence, that police verification and threat assessments must be meaningfully weighed, and that denial cannot rest solely on the absence of a specific or imminent threat.

It also stated that a safety-training requirement under Rule 39 could not be insisted upon unless notified by the Central Government under Rule 10(3).

The District Magistrate rejected the application for want of evidence of danger without discussing the FIRs and Sanhas the petitioner had placed on record, and relied on a Raghopur police report that had not been disclosed to him, although the cited incidents were registered at other locations.

The Commissioner affirmed the rejection without independently examining that material.

Because the authorities had not objectively assessed the petitioner’s supporting materials, both orders were procedurally and substantively deficient.

The Court did not, however, determine that the petitioner was entitled to a licence; it required a fresh consideration.

It directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application for a rifle and handgun, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and to pass a reasoned order within three months of receiving or being produced with a copy of the judgment. The petitioner may submit further documents.

The writ petition was allowed.