Allahabad High Court seeks data from Collectors on private firearms; flags display of weapons on social media

The Allahabad High Court recently directed all 75 district magistrates (Collectors) in Uttar Pradesh to provide police station-wise details of all firearms possessed by private individuals in the State [Jai Shankar Alias Bairistar v State of UP and 2 Others] .Justice Vinod Diwakar also sought details about applications pending before the district magistrates for grant, renewal or transfer of arms licenses. "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 Court observed that unregulated access to firearms poses a serious threat to society and licensing regime ensures that only individuals who meet strict eligibility criteria are permitted to possess arms.However, it observed that in certain regions of the State, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, firearm ownership is often perceived as a symbol of power, masculinity and social influence. "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.It added that individuals of influence or dubious background brandish weapons in public, display firearms openly or showcase them on social media to attract attention and project an image of strength or dominance. "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 also said that such misuse contributes to a culture of fear rather than adherence to the rule of law. It undermines public confidence in legal institutions and normalises violence within society, the Bench opined."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..The Court also said that in a significant number of cases, multiple members of a single family hold individual arms licences, and in some instances, even possess more than one weapon(s) each. "Such a practice requires serious judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, all the District Magistrates are hereby directed to provide the district-wise and police station-wise details of firearms (along with their descriptions, rifle, pistol or revolver, etc.) possessed by individuals. It shall also be indicated in how many cases (each case's information shall be provided separately), the family members hold separate arms licences," it directed..The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the rejection of an application seeking arms license. The application was filed by a person engaged in the selling of gold ornaments. Despite persistent threats, the application was denied, the Court was told.However, the State said that the petitioner has a criminal history of five cases and thus the license was not granted. The Court found that the petitioner's application was dismissed by the district magistrate after an inordinate delay of four years. It further found that even the appeal preferred by him was decided after a substantial delay of three years. Considering the delay, the Court directed the district magistrate of Bhadohi to file a counter affidavit, explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in deciding the petitioner's application for grant of arms license."The Commissioner/ Appellate Authority constituted under the Arms Act, 1959, is hereby directed to file a personal affidavit justifying the circumstances under which the appeal filed after considerable delay was entertained without recording any finding on limitation or condonation of delay, and why the appeal has not been decided in a time-bound manner," the Bench further said..The Court observed that its docket is burdened with a large number of petitions of this nature. Therefore, the Court said that it was necessary to take a holistic perspective of the issues involved in relation to the issuance of arms license. It, thus, directed the State to answer the following:(i) Whether an Arms Licence Database has been prepared by the State Government; if so, the details of information maintained therein regarding licence holders be provided; (ii) Details of the legal and administrative impediments faced by the District Magistrate(s) in complying with Rules 13, 14, and provisions of Chapter IX of the Arms Rules, 2016, if any. The reasons be furnished why the said administrative and legal impediments have not been addressed by Home Department enabling the concerned District Magistrate(s) and Appellate Authorities(s) to comply with the aforesaid rules in letter and spirit; (iii) Whether Rule 16 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is being complied with by the licensing authorities, which mandates updating of approved transaction data simultaneously in electronic form, both locally and on the NDAL system under the respective log-in ID; (iv) Whether any "arms policy" has been formulated by the state government to guide District Magistrates in arriving a reasoned decisions relating to grant, refusal, or renewal of licences, and if not, is it really required for a state like Uttar Pradesh to have a robust arms policy?The matter will be heard next on April 24..[Read Order]