Courtesy: Richa Kushwaha
An arms license is a license or permit issued by a licensing authority that allows the licensee to buy, own, possess, or carry a firearm, subject to certain conditions or restrictions as prescribed.
Section 2(ea) defines License as follows:
(ea) “licence” means a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules made there under and includes a licence issued in the electronic form
Licencing of such arms is governed by Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016. The Arms Act 1959 provides for various licenses to individuals granting licenses for acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export and transport of arms and ammunition, as provided under Chapter II of the Act.
Cancellation of Arms License
The cancellation of arms license flows from the mandate of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to take steps for cancellation of the arms license in the event any of the conditions given under section 17 are met. Section 2(f) of the Act defines Licensing Authority, which is as follows:
(f) “licensing authority” means an officer or authority empowered to grant or renew licences under rules made under this Act, and includes the Government
Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is as follows:
“17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.―………………
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,―
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder of the said license as provided under Section 17(4) of the Arms Act, 1959.
In the case of Raj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. thru. Addl. Chief secy. Home. Lko. And 3 others (2024:AHC-LKO:8776), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court clearly laid down the contours of Section 17 of the Act, the relevant para whereof is as follows:
“16. From a perusal of Section 17 of the Act, 1959 it emerges that the licensing authority has been given the power to vary the conditions subject to which a license has been granted. The licensing authority, on an application of a holder of a license can also vary the condition of the license. The licensing authority has also been given the power under Sub section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, 1959 to suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license, where the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license is prohibited by the Act, 1959 or by any other law from acquiring or having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a license and if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license or license has been obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the license or if any of the conditions of the license has been contravened or if the holder of the license has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to deliver up the license.”
Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) of Section 17 or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3) of Section 17, it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
What factors must weigh with the Licensing Authority in considering the necessity for the security of the public peace or for public safety?
In a recent case of Anurag Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others[1], the court referred to the law laid down by the court in the case of Suresh Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others[2]andAmar Singh vs. State of U.P.[3] in which this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of a firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:
“17. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the order impugned was passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the firearm license of the petitioner only on the ground that one criminal case is pending against the petitioner which is a complete violation of law laid down by this Court specially in the case of Suresh Singh Yadav & Amar Singh (supra) in which it is held that mere pendency of the criminal cases is not sufficient ground to cancel the firearm license.”
In Habib v. State of U.P. and others[4], the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking licence of firearm was not justified. Relevant paragraph of this judgment reads as under:
“3. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside.”
Can the Allahabad High Court set aside an order of suspension or revocation where the ground taken in the order impugned is “Janhit” or Registration of First Information Report against the license holder?
In the case of Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur[5], it has been held that a license cannot be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pendency of a criminal case. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court set aside the order of the District Magistrate, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and observed as follows:
“8. It is also well settled in law that before passing of the order of suspension or revocation, under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the licensing authority must apply its mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case. Licence cannot be suspended or revoked on the ground of ‘Jan Hit’. Further sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, requires that licence cannot be placed under suspension, for indefinite period. In the impugned order, where the licencing authority did not specify the I time during which the licence of the petitioner shall remain un-der suspension. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decisions of this Court in Pitambar Das v. Dy. Commissioner Pratapgarh, 1957 Cri LJ 281 (All), K.S Abdullah v. District Collector, AIR 1972 Ker 202.”
What is the stand of the Allahabad High Court on carrying Firearms in a firearm freezone?
In case of Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others[6], the court referred an additional ground from the Arms rules 2016 i.e. carrying a firearm in a firearm freezone. Relevant para: –
“15. On a plain reading of the mandate of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 32 of the Rules, 2016, it is clear that carrying of a firearm in a firearm free zone is strictly prohibited and can lead to an additional ground to revocation of the license and seizure of firearm in addition to the penalty prescribed under the Act.”
What is the stand of the Allahabad High Court on carrying arms in court premises?
In case of Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others[7], court held that carrying of fire arms in court premises would ipso facto amount to threat to public peace and public safety under section 17(3)(b) of the Arms act[8] and with the reference of the mandate of Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) as well as Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016[9], it held that it as a ground for revocation of licence. The Court considered the issue “Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises can lead to cancellation of the arms license in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 with the rules framed under the Arms Act?”.
To the abovenoted issue, the Allahabad High Court held as follows:
“45. Thus, the Issue No.III is answered by holding that carrying of arms in the Court premises can not only lead to cancellation of arms license, it is a natural corollary that the cancellation of arms license would necessarily follow against anyone including the lawyers except for member of the armed forces on duty who are found carrying arms in the Court premises.”
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court further passed general directions for not carrying arms in the Court Premises.[10]
[1](WRIT – C No. – 27534 of 2025) 2025: AHC:174550, see also Suresh Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others and Amar Singh vs. State of U.P.
[2] 2022 SCC Online All 2023.
[3] 2022 SCC OnLine All 2049.
[4]2002 (44) ACC 783
[5]Writ petition no. 1274 (M/S) of 1991, see also para 3 and 7
[6] WRIT – C No. – 2461 of 2023
[7]WRIT – C No. – 2461 of 2023
[8]Ibid,para 41
[9] Ibid, para 42
[10] Ibid, see para 47