General trend to have firearm licence not in the interest of noble profession of Advocate: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a general trend for advocates to have licences to carry firearms was not appreciable, and was not in the interest of the noble profession of law (Ram Milan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others)..While doing so, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery refused to entertain a plea filed by a petitioner who claimed to be an advocate, seeking grant of a firearm license for his personal and professional safety..While dismissing the advocate's plea, the Bench observed that if such applications are allowed without any concrete basis, a day will come that every Advocate will carry an arm inside the court premises.."If an Advocate requires a firearm licence for his personal and professional safety, it would be a very dangerous practice. The profession of Advocate is a noble profession. An Advocate always appears fearlessly before the Court to protect the rights of his clients. In case there is a threat in the mind of Advocate, the entire basis of nobleness of the profession would fall. If such applications are allowed without any concrete basis, a day will come that every Advocate will carry an arm inside the Court premises. Every Advocate has a weapon of his legal arguments with bullets of judgments passed by High Courts and Supreme Court in support of his submission, which are enough to provide safety to his profession and client and are sufficient to demand justice from the Courts," the order stated. .Though the Court noted that there was no bar on advocates applying for firearm licences in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules, it held,"However, a general trend to have a firearm licence by an Advocate without any good reason is not appreciable and it is not in the interest of noble profession of Advocate.".The licensing authority had rejected the petitioner's request for grant of a firearm licence after considering the nature of his business/profession as well as his genuine requirement to protect his life and property. This prompted him to approach the High Court..Advocate Mansi Shankar Pandey, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that there had been attempts on his life, and that some local persons had also tried to molest female members of his family by entering his house. On the basis of complaints filed by the petitioner, two FIRs had been registered..Appearing for the State, the Standing Counsel submitted that the licensing authority found that there was no reason to suggest that the petitioner was a victim of crime or had genuine need to carry a firearm..It was noted by the Court that there was no documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner was an active advocate. Further, he had not apprised the Court of the present status of the criminal cases that were registered based on his complaints.The Court was of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority could not be challenged under writ jurisdiction in absence of any material."There was no basis for such satisfaction or the basis of satisfaction is based on surmises and conjectures. Even the contention of petitioner that there was an attempt to murder is not supported by the offences under which the aforesaid criminal cases are registered," the Court observed..While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that in case the petitioner faces a genuine threat from the accused persons, he is always at liberty to approach the police authorities to seek protection under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018..[Read Order]