Source: Patna High Court  

Why in News? 

The Patna High Court ruled that an arms license cannot be denied solely on the ground of the applicant lacking a specific security threat or imminent danger. The court set aside decisions by the District Magistrate, Khagaria, and Divisional Commissioner, Munger, which rejected a petitioner's application on this basis.  

• Referring to past judgments, the court observed that such denials are contrary to the intent of the Arms Rules, 2016, which do not mandate a threat perception as a prerequisite for granting licenses. 

What was the Background of Ranjan Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of Bihar and Others? 

• Ranjan Kumar Mandal, an ex-military personnel who runs a petrol pump in Khagaria, Bihar, applied for an arms license in January 2013. Initially, his application looked promising - both the local Sub-Divisional Officer and the Police Station in-charge recommended granting him the license. 
• Despite these recommendations, the District Magistrate of Khagaria rejected Mandal's arms license application in March 2018, citing a lack of threat perception or danger to his life. When Mandal appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner in Munger, his appeal was also dismissed in November 2019 on the same grounds. 
• Feeling that the rejection was unfair, Mandal approached the Patna High Court through a writ petition. He argued that having a threat perception should not be the sole criteria for denying an arms license, especially given his background as a former military personnel and a small business owner. 
• The case highlighted a broader legal question about the criteria for granting arms licenses in Bihar, specifically whether the absence of a direct threat to one's life should automatically disqualify an applicant from obtaining a license. 
• The key contention was that the licensing authorities were applying too narrow an interpretation of the Arms Rules, 2016, by focusing exclusively on threat perception rather than considering other relevant factors like the applicant's profession, background, and potential need for personal protection.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Observations: 

• The High Court critically analyzed the administrative orders and found that the rejection of the arms license was fundamentally flawed, being predicated exclusively on the absence of a specific threat perception, which is contrary to the judicial interpretation of the Arms Rules, 2016. 
• The court extensively referenced precedential judgments, particularly the Division Bench's ruling in Deepak Kumar, which unequivocally held that the absence of an imminent threat cannot serve as a categorical ground for license rejection, as such an approach would fundamentally undermine the legislative intent behind arms license provisions. 
• The judicial reasoning emphasized that licensing authorities must conduct a comprehensive evaluation of an applicant's requirements, meticulously considering the nature of their profession, potential vulnerability, and the genuine necessity for personal protection beyond immediate threat parameters. 
• Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016 was critically interpreted as a mandatory provision requiring licensing authorities to assess applications based on comprehensive police reports and their independent judicial evaluation, particularly for individuals whose professional circumstances might necessitate personal arms for protection. 
• The court observed that the determination of arms license should be a nuanced, multi-dimensional assessment considering complex factors rather than a mechanical rejection based on a singular criterion of threat perception. 
• The judicial interpretation stressed that an applicant's substantive ability to persuade the authority about the genuine requirement of arms, considering their professional background and potential systemic risks, should be the primary consideration in license adjudication. 

Case Referred: 

• Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019)z; 
  •  A landmark Division Bench judgment (LPA No. 758 of 2018) that explicitly held that absence of specific security threat cannot be grounds for rejecting an arms license application. 

What is Section 12 of Arms Rules, 2016? 

• Section 12 deals with the obligations of licensing authority in certain cases. 
• Subsection (1): This introductory clause indicates that the licensing authority must follow specific norms when granting licenses for restricted or permissible arms and ammunition in certain categories. 
• Subsection (2): Criteria for Granting Restricted Arms Licenses 
• The licensing authority may consider applications from individuals in the following circumstances: 
• Those facing grave and anticipated life threats, specifically:  
  • Residents of areas with high militant, terrorist, or extremist activity. 
  • Individuals who are prime targets of militants, terrorists, or extremists. 
  • People facing danger for opposing militant, terrorist, or extremist objectives. 
• Government officials who:  
  • Face anticipated risks due to their office or nature of duty. 
  • Are exposed to potential life threats while performing official responsibilities. 
• Members of Parliament or Legislative Assemblies who:  
  • Have active associations with anti-militant, anti-terrorist, or anti-extremist government programs. 
  • Are at risk due to their political views or stance. 
• Family members or relatives of individuals who:  
  • Have past or present duties or positions that expose them to life risks 
  • Are vulnerable due to known or unknown reasons 
  • Any other person with a legitimate and genuine reason, as determined by the licensing authority through a detailed order. 
• Important Proviso: Before granting a license, the authority must: 
  • Obtain recommendations from the district magistrate 
  • Consult the State Government 
  • Examine police reports 
  • Conduct independent verification 
  • Satisfy themselves that the applicant genuinely requires the license 
• Subsection (3): Criteria for Permissible Arms Licenses 
• The licensing authority may consider applications from: 
• Individuals with genuine requirements to protect life or property based on:  
  • Nature of business 
  • Professional needs 
  • Job-related risks 
• Dedicated sports persons who:  
  • Have been active members of a licensed shooting club or rifle association for at least two years. 
  • Seek to pursue target practice through a structured learning process. 
• Individuals with service backgrounds, including:  
  • Current or former Defense Forces personnel 
  • Central Armed Police Forces members 
  • State Police Force members 
  • Who have genuine needs to protect their life or property 

What Are the Conditions for Obtaining a Firearm License in India? 

• License for Acquisition and Possession of Firearms and Ammunition: 
  • General Provisions: 
    • Section 3 of the Arms Act 1959.  
    • No person shall acquire, possess, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless they hold a valid licence issued in accordance with this Act and the associated rules.  
      • Exception: A person may carry a firearm or ammunition in the presence of, or under the written authority of, a licensed holder for purposes such as repair or renewal of the licence. 
  • Limitations on Possession: 
    • No individual, except those mentioned in subsection (3), shall possess more than two firearms at any time.  
      • Transition Clause: Individuals who possessed more than three firearms at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, may retain three firearms and must deposit any excess within ninety days. 
      • Further Amendment: Individuals with more than two firearms at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, may retain two firearms and must deposit any excess within one year. 
  • Exceptions: 
    • The limitations in subsection (2) do not apply to:  
      • Dealers in firearms. 
      • Members of licensed or recognized rifle clubs or associations using specific types of rifles for target practice. 
  • Deposit of Firearms: 
    • The provisions regarding the deposit of firearms under subsection (2) will apply similarly to any deposits made under the relevant sections of this Act.
• Grant of Licences (Section 13): 

• Refusal of  Licences (Section 14):