Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed challenging the order, wherein the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Licensing Authority as well as the appellate order dated 07-11-2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, Pankaj Bhatia,J. has held that carrying of arms in the Court premises can not only lead to cancellation of arms license, but it is also 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.
Background:
A young advocate (petitioner), after enrolling in the noble profession in the year 2018 was charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC read with Section 30 of the Arms Act for carrying arms in the Court premises. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner, and he was subsequently served with a show-cause notice.
The petitioner pleaded that the right to keep arms is a right necessary for preservation of life, liberty and property. It was further pleaded that the right to carry arms is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which fact has been ignored by the Licensing Authority. It was further pleaded that the life of the petitioner is in danger as he is a practicing advocate, and the task of advocacy is very challenging due to annoyance of parties to litigation. He argued that while passing the order, the mandate of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act (‘the Act’) has been violated as there is no threat to public peace or public safety.
Issues and Analysis:
Whether the right to carry arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
The Court noted the scheme of the Arms Act and the Arms Rules, 2016, as well as the relevant provisions pertaining to the restrictions in the Court premises.
The Court took note of Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., 1985 SCC OnLine All 467 and Rana Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 SCC OnLine All 979, wherein it was held that arms license is merely a privilege granted by the State and is not a Right. Further, right to carry arms is certainly not a fundamental right much less a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises is permissible by the lawyers who claim that the law profession is typical and is challenging due to annoyance of parties to litigation?
The Court reiterated that the grant of arms license is not flowing out of any right but is a mere privilege which is subject to various restrictions enumerated under the Act, the Rules, 2016, and in particular Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil), which specifically bars any person who is not belonging to the police force to carry or have in his possession any arms in the ‘Court premises’. Further, the ‘Court Premises’ as explained in Explanation II of Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil) gives an enhanced definition to the Court Premises and is not confined to Courtrooms, thus, carrying of the arms in the Court premises is not only barred for lawyers but is also barred for any member of the public unless he belongs to a police force, that too only if the police official is on duty.
Further, it said remarked that it is a somber moment in the judicial chronicles when a lawyer, having practiced for a mere two years, harbors the misguided notion that wielding arms within the courtroom is essential for professional success. This sentiment reflects a concerning departure from the principles of legal practice, undermining the integrity and decorum of the judicial process. Such beliefs run counter to the foundations of a fair and just legal system, emphasizing the need for a re-evaluation of values within the legal profession.
The Court, while expressing concern, said that young professionals entering the Bar like the petitioner herein, need serious counseling to get over such mistaken notion that he carries while entering the legal profession. The legal profession is being crowded with people who are not undergoing any systematic training, which was earlier provided informally through chamber affiliations; this aspect is within the domain of the Bar Council. Thus, it advised the Bar Council to redress this aspect through effective ways and means after discussion.
Thus, the Court held that no one, including any litigant or a lawyer, can carry any arms in the Court premises and that succeeding in the law profession certainly does not require support of the barrel of a gun.
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 Arms Act?
The Court took note of Section 17 and said that the interpretation of the word ‘may’ appearing in Section 17(3)(b) is merely a power or a power coupled with a duty. Such interpretation has to be done considering the statements and objects of the Arms Act, and the same has to be in sync with the rights provided under Part III of the Constitution.
The Court noted that Section 17(3)(b) lists down ‘security of the public peace’ or for ‘public safety’ as a ground to revoke license and the object of the same is consistent with balancing the right of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order in the country. Thus, it held that the word ‘may’ occurring in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act is power coupled with duty. Thus, once the existence of the conditions laid down in Section 17(3)(b) are shown to exist, the licensing authority has to necessarily suspend or revoke the license.
As per the Court, any other interpretation of the Section would lead to grave and serious consequences, as the same would imply that the licensing authority has discretion not to revoke or suspend the license, even though there is a threat to public security or the same is necessary for public peace.
Whether the carrying of firearms in Court premises would ipso facto amount to a threat to public peace or Public Safety under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act?
The Court said that “Public peace” or “Public Safety” although not defined under the Act has to be interpreted conjointly with the mandate of Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) as well as Rule 32 of the Rules, 2016, which place certain restrictions for carrying of arms in a public place and in fact, prohibits carrying of arms in the Court premises.
The Court added that permitting the lawyers or any litigant other than the member of the armed forces on duty to carry arms would be clearly a threat to public peace or public safety in the Court premises, which not only has an adverse effect on the litigants frequenting the District Courts but also has the effect of adversely affecting the credibility of the administration of justice, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India.
Thus, the Court gave the following directions:
-
All the District Judges and all the Judicial Officers working in the entire State of UP shall take steps for registration of the cases under the Arms Act against any person whether it is a litigant or a lawyer carrying arms within the Court premises and shall forward a request to the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority of the area concerned for taking immediate steps for cancellation of the arms license.
-
The District Judges and the Judicial Officers as well as the Security In-Charge of the District Courts are bound to take steps for registration of FIRs/complaints against the person carrying arms within the Court premises as defined under Explanation II to Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) and to forward such report to the Licensing Authority for taking immediate steps for cancellation of the arms license.
-
The Licensing Authority under the Arms Act shall take steps for cancellation of the arms license in respect of a person found or alleged to be carrying arms.
-
Any person found carrying ‘Arms’ in the entire Court premises including common areas, Court rooms, lawyers’ chambers, Bar Associations, Canteens and other public areas within the entire Court premises would be deemed to be constituting breach of ‘public peace’ or ‘public safety’ for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.
[Amandeep Singh v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2762, Order dated 19-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Ravi Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
