The Allahabad High Court has directed all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to submit police station-wise data on private firearms and arms licence holders with criminal history. The Court also expressed concern over the growing trend of displaying licensed weapons on social media to create fear and show dominance.
The Allahabad High Court has recently passed an important order directing all the District Magistrates (Collectors) of all 75 districts in Uttar Pradesh to submit detailed information about firearms held by private individuals across the State.
The Court also asked authorities to provide police station-wise details of all licensed firearms and information about pending applications for grant, renewal or transfer of arms licences.
Justice Vinod Diwakar issued several directions to ensure better regulation and monitoring of arms licences in the State. The Court specifically directed the authorities to identify arms licence holders who have criminal backgrounds and to submit detailed information to the Court through affidavits.
The Court clearly ordered,
“A separate category of those arms licence holder be prepared who have a criminal history of two or more cases, the details of the criminal cases ( the criminal history) be prepared against each arms licence holder, and be furnished to this court by way of personal affidavit with the declaration that the information provided by the deponent of the affidavit is true and correct and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. The information shall be furnished by all the concerned SP, S.S.P. or Commissioner of Police of each district,”
the Court ordered.
The High Court observed that unregulated access to firearms can pose a serious threat to society, and therefore, the arms licensing system exists to ensure that only eligible and responsible individuals are allowed to possess firearms. However, the Court also noted that in many rural and semi-urban areas, owning a firearm is often seen as a symbol of power, masculinity and social status.
The Court made strong observations about the misuse of licensed weapons in society and said,
“At times, individuals with political ambitions or questionable backgrounds use licensed weapons to project authority, cultivate a dominant image, and indirectly intimidate others, thereby fostering an atmosphere of fear. The display of firearms on social media platforms, including reels, is also used to seek attention, gain social validation, and reinforce identity through the amplification of gun culture,”
the Court said.
The Court further observed that influential persons or persons with questionable backgrounds often openly display firearms in public or on social media to create fear and show dominance.
The Court noted,
“In certain cases, persons with criminal antecedents who enter public life or politics utilise licensed weapons to reinforce a “strongman” persona, thereby blurring the distinction between lawful possession and intimidation,”
it said further.
The Court emphasized that such misuse of firearms creates fear in society and weakens public trust in the legal system. The Bench observed that this trend promotes fear rather than respect for law and order and affects the mindset of ordinary citizens. The Court made an important sociological observation and stated,
“The issue is not merely legal but has significant sociological implications, affecting the psyche of the common citizen. It reflects the persistence of feudal power structures, the inadequate enforcement of norms governing the public display of firearms, and the influence of a media-driven peer-validation culture. The interplay of power, perception, and social media further exacerbates the issue,”
the Court stated.
ALSO READ: Oshiwara Firing Case: KRK Gets Bail, Claims Gun Fired Accidentally While Cleaning
The Court also expressed concern over the growing trend where multiple members of the same family hold separate arms licences and sometimes even own more than one weapon each. The Court said that this issue requires serious judicial examination and directed all District Magistrates to provide district-wise and police station-wise data of firearms, including details such as whether the weapon is a rifle, pistol or revolver. The Court also directed authorities to provide details of cases where multiple family members hold separate arms licences and to provide separate information for each such case.
The case before the Court was related to a person who had applied for an arms licence claiming that he was engaged in the business of selling gold ornaments and had received persistent threats, but his application was rejected. The State government argued that the applicant had a criminal history of five cases and therefore the licence was denied.
However, the Court found that the District Magistrate had taken four years to decide the application, and even the appeal filed by the applicant took three years to be decided, which the Court considered an inordinate and unjustified delay.
Due to this delay, the Court directed the District Magistrate of Bhadohi to file a counter affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay in deciding the arms licence application. The Court also directed the appellate authority under the Arms Act, 1959 to explain why the appeal was entertained after a long delay without properly dealing with the issue of limitation and why the appeal was not decided within a reasonable time.
The Court also noted that a large number of similar petitions relating to arms licences are pending before the Court, which is increasing the burden on the Court’s docket. Therefore, the Court decided to examine the larger issue of arms licence regulation in Uttar Pradesh and asked the State government to provide important information regarding the arms licensing system.
The Court asked the State government to clarify whether a proper Arms Licence Database has been prepared and what kind of information is maintained in that database. The Court also asked the State to explain the legal and administrative difficulties faced by District Magistrates in implementing Rules 13 and 14 and the provisions of Chapter IX of the Arms Rules, 2016, and why such difficulties have not yet been resolved by the Home Department.
Further, the Court asked whether Rule 16 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is being followed properly, which requires that all approved arms licence transactions must be updated simultaneously in electronic form on the NDAL system.
The Court also questioned whether the State government has framed any arms policy to guide District Magistrates in making decisions regarding grant, refusal or renewal of arms licences, and if no such policy exists, whether a large State like Uttar Pradesh should have a proper arms policy.
The matter is scheduled to be heard next on April 24, where the State government is expected to respond to the questions raised by the Court and submit the required data and affidavits.
Case Title:
Jai Shankar Alias Bairistar v State of UP and 2 Others.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Gun
