Members of rifle associations, shooting clubs not allowed to possess more than two firearms: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that individuals who are members of associations or clubs like the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) are not allowed to be in permanent possession of more than two firearms under the Arms Act 1959 [Meet Malhotra v Union of India and Ors]..Single-judge Justice Yashwant Varma held that while such clubs, rifles associations, shooting ranges etc are entitled to hold firearms without any upper limit, the individual members of such associations or clubs are not so entitled."Acceptance of this contention would lead to absurd results with a person by virtue of being a member of an association or club being recognised in law to hold any number of firearms. This would essentially put such an individual at par with a dealer of firearms and rifle associations and clubs," the Court said.This cannot possibly be construed as being the intent of the Section, Justice Varma ruled.These members may be entitled to hold and possess ammunition in excess of what is otherwise prescribed for an individual under the Arms Rules, 2016, but that cannot be construed as conferring any special or distinct status upon them under the Arms Act, the Court added.“…the Act on a fundamental plane neither recognises nor confers a special or distinct status upon members of the NRAI or State Rifle Associations or their affiliates. Members of such associations are not conferred a special status either under the Act or the Rules. While a person may be a member of such an association or club, his individual right to bear or possess a firearm continues to be controlled and governed by the provisions of the Act which deal with any other ordinary citizen who may choose to apply for the grant of a licence,” the Court said..The Court underscored that only category of licenses envisaged to hold or possess weapons with no upper limit are the arms manufacturers and dealers which would include NRAI, State Rifle Associations, affiliated District Rifle Associations, shooting clubs, shooting ranges or the sports authorities of respective State governments..The Court was dealing with a petition by one Meet Malhotra challenging an August 31, 2021 communication from the ACP (Licensing) informing him about the prescribed limit of two firearms per individual as per Section 3(2) of the Arms Act following the 2019 amendment.The communication stated that the condition applied to members of any rifle club or association as well.It was said that petitioner had held licenses for three firearms and in 2011 he became a member of the NRAI..Malhotra argued that a member of the rifle association is duly recognised under the Act as falling outside Section 3(2) of the act and the 2019 amendment cannot be read as requiring members of such a club to surrender any firearm in excess of two.A submission was also made that when Section 3(3) of the Act uses the phrase “or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to target practice” is liable to be interpreted as conferring on them a right to carry or possess more than two firearms.The Court noted that the exemption from Section 3(2) is provided in Section 3(3).Section 3(3), the Court said, firstly refers to a dealer in firearm. While the word “dealer” is not defined in the Act, Rule 2(19) of the 2016 Rules, defines that expression as follows: “(19) “dealer” means a person who, by way of trade or business, buys, sells, tests (other than proof-test), exports, imports or transfers or keeps for sale, or test (other than proof-test) arms or ammunition and includes the Sports Authority of India (SAI), the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) and the State Rifle Associations affiliated to NRAI or directly affiliated units of NRAI;”.The Court observed that the definition of dealer as set out in the 2016 Rules, would include not only a person who may be engaged in the trade or business of firearms but also the NRAI, State Rifle Associations and their affiliated units."The logic and the reason behind exempting dealers from the restriction of two firearms is neither difficult to comprehend nor far to seek. A person who is engaged in the trade of selling, buying, exporting or importing firearms would obviously have in his possession more than two firearms. Similarly, NRAI or other rifle associations and clubs would undoubtedly have more than two firearms at any given point of time. In any case, any doubt that may have been remotely harboured in this respect is laid to rest by virtue of the express exemption orders issued by the Union Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 41," the single-judge held..The Court further held that Section 3(3) is based on the consideration that a member of a club or association may come to hold or possess, although for a temporary period, a firearm which may otherwise be licensed to a club or association.“The provisions of Section 3(3) cannot be fragmented or dismembered. It must be read cohesively. Viewed in light of the above, the Court comes to the definite conclusion that a member of an association or club is statutorily accorded the permission to temporarily be in possession of a firearm in excess of two only in case he be holding or be in possession of an additional weapon which may be licensed to the club or association.”.Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition..Malhotra appeared in person along with advocates Ravi SS Chauhan, Pallak Singh and Chantha Channan.Senior Advocate Jayant K Mehta and advocates Rajendra Sahu, Shadan Farasat, Bharat Gupta, Aditya Singh, Amtir Singh, Atul Kumar, Sweety Singh and Rajiv Ranjan appeared for respondents..[Read Judgment]