The Supreme Court emphasized the repercussions of celebratory firing at wedding ceremonies.The court emphasized that the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Supreme Court emphasized the disastrous outcomes of “uncontrolled and unwarranted” celebratory firing during weddings, which often result in the maiming or loss of innocent lives.
READ ALSO: Right To Privacy: BJP Candidate Rekha Patra Moves to SC & NCW Against TMC Nominee
Back in February 2023, the court strongly criticized the easy accessibility and possession of guns, particularly unlicensed or locally manufactured firearms, in states like Uttar Pradesh. It regarded this practice as a tradition that blatantly disregards the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court once again dealt with a case involving the death of an individual who was fatally shot in the neck by another guest at a wedding in 2016.
Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, comprising the bench, observed,
“The act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies is an unfortunate yet prevailing practice in our nation. The present case is a direct example of the disastrous consequences of such an uncontrolled and unwarranted celebratory firing.”
The shooter, Shahid Ali, received a life sentence for murder. His appeal was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, later approached the Supreme Court for relief.
Justice Sharma ruled, Ali was found guilty of culpable homicide, but not murder. The Supreme Court held that there was no prior animosity between Ali and the deceased. Only a single bullet was fired, resulting in instantaneous death.
Consequently, the court ordered Ali’s immediate release, considering that he had already served eight years of his sentence. Justice Sharma expressed regret over such unfortunate fatalities.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Directs States & UTs to Issue Ration Cards to 80 Million Migrant Workers
The previous year, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the significant number of cases related to the possession and use of illegal firearms in Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized that the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
During a bail application hearing in a murder case, Justices K.M. Joseph (now retired) and B.V. Nagarathna remarked that the prevalence of this phenomenon was deeply troubling.
They stated,
“The Indian Constitution places great significance on the preservation of life. The proliferation of illegal and unlicensed weapons must be halted; otherwise, it would deal a severe blow to the rule of law.”
