Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner, a renowned national-level shooter, seeking directions to obtain the arms license for sports purposes after the same was denied to her based on her family’s criminal background, a single-judge bench of Dinesh Mehta, J., held that denying the petitioner a license solely based on her family background was arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating her rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and directed District Magistrate to issue her a permanent arms license for sports purposes.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner applied for an arms license on 13-12-2021 for sports purposes and submitted all the relevant documents, including a Police Verification Certificate and a certificate from the National Rifle Association of India certifying her participation in the 63rd National Shooting Championship. Despite no criminal record, her application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, on 13-10-2022, citing public peace and safety concerns under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Arms Act), based on her family’s criminal background. The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions, including the present one, seeking directions to obtain the license, citing that her participation in national and international competitions, including the 2024 Olympics, is at risk.
Moot Point
-
Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s arms license application on the basis of her family’s criminal background was valid under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act?
-
Whether the petitioner, as a renowned sports shooter, is entitled to the arms license under Rules 36 and 37 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (the Arms Rules)?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the petitioner is an accomplished shooter with no criminal history and has been wrongfully denied a license based solely on her family’s background, contrary to Section 14 of the Arms Act and Rules 36 and 37 of the Arms Rules. It was claimed that the rejection infringes upon her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it impedes her right to pursue her profession and participate in shooting competitions. However, the respondents argued that the petitioner’s family background, which includes notorious criminals, poses a risk to public safety if she is granted a license.
Court’s Analysis
The Court found that the petitioner’s application was denied due to her family’s criminal background rather than her own conduct, which violated her fundamental rights. The Court noted the rejection by the District Magistrate to be arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations. The Court asserted that the petitioner’s family background should not be used against her when there are no criminal antecedents.
“The family history of the applicant, becomes absolutely irrelevant, more particularly, when the application is for license under sports quota.”
The Court emphasised that the word “necessary” in the statute indicates that a license may be refused only when it is essential for the security of public peace or public safety. The Court stated that the refusal must be based on solid, tangible grounds, not mere conjecture or surmises. The Court stated that the licensing authority’s apprehensions were speculative and lacked substantial material evidence. The Court deemed the rejection based on “conjectures and surmises” about possible misuse of the weapon as baseless, especially when the petitioner had no criminal history. The Court opined that, as per the Arms Act and the Arms Rules, the petitioner, being a renowned sports shooter, is entitled to an arms license.
The Court asserted that participation in sports can be considered an occupation, and denying the petitioner a license impacts her ability to pursue her profession or occupation as a sportsperson. The Court held that the denial, being arbitrary and unsupported by substantial reasons, infringes on the petitioner’s right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court found that the petitioner had been discriminated against solely on account of her family background, particularly her father’s criminal record. The Court held that “Denial of license to the petitioner amounts to infraction of her rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India also, as the petitioner has been discriminated solely on the ground of her family background.”
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and held that denying the petitioner a license solely based on her family background was arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating her rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Court quashed the District Magistrate’s order dated 13-10-2022 and directed the District Magistrate to issue a full arms license to the petitioner within ten days.
[Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2928, Decided on 24-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG assisted by Mr. Deepak Suthar and Mr. Ravindra Jala, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
