By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a firearm licence cannot be cancelled unless the authorities clearly establish a violation of Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
The Court stressed that before cancelling a licence, it is mandatory for the adjudicating authority to examine and record whether any breach of the specific conditions under Rule 32 has actually occurred.
The judgment came while allowing a writ petition filed by Yogendra Prasad, whose revolver licence had been cancelled by the District Magistrate (DM) of Ghazipur.
Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, delivering the decision, emphasised that the cancellation was illegal as it failed to satisfy the essential procedural requirement under the law.
Quoting from the judgment, the Court noted:
“Before a licence can be cancelled under Rule 32, the authority must form a clear opinion regarding whether the licensed firearm was not carried in proper protective gear, or whether it was brandished, discharged, or used for blank firing in a public place or firearm-free zone. These considerations are mandatory for invoking Rule 32.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner was issued a revolver licence on July 16, 2005. On September 22, 2020, the District Magistrate suspended the licence and ordered the petitioner to deposit his weapon.
Despite the petitioner submitting a reply denying all allegations, the police seized his weapon on August 17, 2020.
His appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi, was also dismissed, prompting him to approach the High Court.
Court’s Observations
After examining Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016, the Court reiterated that:
- No individual may carry a firearm in public without proper equipment, such as a holster.
- Brandishing, blank firing, or displaying a firearm in public places is strictly prohibited.
- Cancellation of a licence requires proof of violation of these provisions.
The Court found that the authorities failed to specify which exact sub-rule of Rule 32 was breached and that the cancellation order did not record any clear findings on the alleged violation.
“In the impugned order, such findings are completely absent. Without clearly specifying which sub-rule under Rule 32 has been violated, the petitioner cannot be held liable for cancellation of his gun licence or seizure of his weapon,” the Court held.
In its decision dated November 19, the High Court set aside the cancellation of the licence and allowed the writ petition, restoring the petitioner’s rights.
#AllahabadHighCourt #ArmsAct #Rule32 #LegalJudgment #GunLicense #JudicialReview #DueProcess #IndianLaw #HighCourtDecision