The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that there is no absolute right to be granted a firearm licence and that the decision to issue such a licence rests within the discretionary domain of the executive. The Court observed that the statutory framework governing arms licences vests the relevant authority with wide latitude to determine whether an applicant satisfies the criteria for issuance of a licence, and that judicial interference in such executive decisions can only be justified if it is shown that the authority acted in an arbitrary, unjust or unreasonable manner.
The petition before the Court had been filed by an individual who sought direction for issuance of a firearm licence. The petitioner contended that he met all statutory requirements and was therefore entitled to the licence as a matter of right. He asserted that denial of the licence without providing adequate reasons was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. In response, the executive authority maintained that firearm licences are regulated by the Arms Rules and the Arms Act, which entrust the licensing authority with the responsibility to assess each application on its merits, taking into account considerations of public safety, law and order and other relevant factors stipulated under the law.
In its ruling, the High Court noted that the grant of a firearm licence is not an entitlement but a privilege that may be conferred upon an applicant subject to satisfaction of prescribed conditions and the overall assessment of the authority. The Court emphasised that the statutory regime deliberately vests discretion in the licensing authority so that it can consider factors that may impact public order and safety. It explained that such discretionary power cannot be curtailed by treating the licence as a matter of right. The Court further held that while principles of natural justice require that an applicant should be provided a reasonable opportunity to present his case and that the authority should give such reasons as would enable effective judicial review, this does not convert the licence into an enforceable right.
The bench clarified that judicial scrutiny over executive decisions regarding firearm licences is limited. Courts may intervene only where it is demonstrated that the authority’s decision was arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory or without application of mind. Mere dissatisfaction of the applicant with the outcome or disagreement with the authority’s assessment does not suffice to justify interference. The Court stressed that considerations of public safety and law and order, which are central to the executive’s assessment in firearm licensing, are matters falling squarely within the expertise and domain of the licence-issuing authority.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no basis to direct issuance of the licence. It reiterated that the executive’s discretionary role in firearm licensing must be respected, and that absence of an absolute right to such a licence is consistent with the legislative scheme designed to balance individual interests with broader considerations of public safety and order. The judgment reinforces the principle that firearm licences are privileges subject to executive evaluation and that courts will not lightly substitute their own views for those of the authority entrusted by law with the task of regulating arms licences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.