MEET MALHOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question a communication dtd. 31/8/2021 issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) bringing to his attention the prescribed limit of an individual carrying or possessing not more than two firearms as per Sec. 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 [the Act] and which was also asserted to apply to members of any rifle club or association. It was consequently observed that all licensees including the petitioner here would be obliged to deposit a firearm in excess of two within 15 days either with the jurisdictional police station or an authorized arms dealer. The aforesaid communication is based on the amendments introduced in Sec. 3 of the Act vide the Arms (Amendment) Act 2019 [2019 Amending Act] which came to be notified on 13/12/2019.

(2.) The petitioner held a valid license for a point 22 bore target pistol, a point 22 rifle and a point 32 revolver. Those three firearms were duly endorsed and entered on the license which the petitioner held and had been granted to him in 2002. In 2011 the petitioner is also stated to have become a life member of the National Rifle Association of India [NRAI]. It would be pertinent to note that prior to the amendments which were introduced in 2019, Sec. 3, as it stood provided that no person would acquire, have in his possession or carry at any time more than three firearms. Persons referred to in Sec. 3(3) were excluded from the operation of Sec. 3(2) of the Act. The proviso to sub-sec. (2) as it existed prior to 2019 mandated that a person who may have in his possession more than three firearms at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act 1983 [1983 Amending Act] may retain any three of such firearms and deposit the additional weapon within 90 days from the commencement of the 1983 Amending Act. Sec. 3(3) provides that nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) would apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or association licensed or recognized to hold and use a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice.

(3.) When the writ petition initially came to be filed, it was based on the assertion that the 2019 Amending Act could not apply to those licensees who held more than two firearms pursuant to a license that may have been granted prior to the enforcement of that Act. Responding to the e-mail which is impugned, the petitioner took the same position before the respondents. It was further and additionally urged that since the petitioner was a life member of the NRAI, the requirement of depositing a licensed firearm in excess of two would not apply. The respondents by a communication of 13/8/2021 reiterated the position and required the petitioner to deposit firearms that may be held in excess of two. The petitioner thereafter is stated to have addressed detailed representations to the Commissioner of Police dated 16 and 23/9/2021. Since no response is stated to have been received, he filed the instant writ petition in October 2021. After the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner is also asserted to have deposited the point 22 rifle held by him with an arms dealer on 8/10/2021. The petitioner is thereafter stated to have applied for renewal of the arms license as would be evident from the email dtd. 2/12/2021 addressed to the licensing authority. The request for renewal was reiterated by a further email on 6/12/2021.