Arms Licence Cannot Be Suspended Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Under Section 17(3) Arms Act

"Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be suspended. The licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for suspending the licence." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated 24 September 2026, held that the suspension of an arms licence cannot be ordered by the licensing authority solely on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case.

A bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed that the power to suspend a licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, requires the authority to record subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of such action for public peace and safety, rather than acting on a "bald apprehension."

The petitioner, a retired Army personnel currently employed as a security guard, challenged an order dated 19 December 2024, which had suspended his arms licence indefinitely following the registration of a criminal case against him. The petitioner contended that the licensed firearm was never used in the alleged incident and had even been voluntarily deposited with the police as a precautionary measure. Furthermore, the petitioner had since been acquitted of all charges by the trial court in September 2026.

The primary question before the court was whether the licensing authority exercised its statutory powers under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, in a lawful manner. Specifically, the court examined whether the mere registration of a criminal case constitutes sufficient grounds for the indefinite suspension of a firearm licence without a reasoned order demonstrating an imminent threat to public safety.

Requirement of Subjective Satisfaction

The High Court emphasized that the grant and suspension of an arms licence must be governed by the specific statutory scheme provided under the Arms Act. The bench clarified that the licensing authority is duty-bound to apply its mind to the facts of the case before depriving a citizen of their licence. It is not enough for the authority to merely cite the existence of criminal proceedings as a mechanical reason for suspension.

"The inescapable conclusion, which can be arrived at is that the licensing authority did not exercise the power in accordance with Section 17(3) of the Act. The power exercised by the authority is without application of mind, arbitrary and without recording subjective satisfaction."

Absence of Evidence Regarding Misuse

The court further noted that in the present case, there was no allegation that the petitioner had used or misused his licensed firearm in connection with the criminal offences registered against him. The fact that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the weapon further mitigated the apprehension of danger to public peace. The bench held that any action taken by the executive must be supported by material demonstrating that the petitioner’s continued possession of the firearm would be prejudicial to public interest.

"The competent authority shall record its independent and reasoned satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, and shall not proceed merely on the basis of registration or pendency of a criminal case or on a bald apprehension of possible misuse of the licensed firearm."

Following these observations, the High Court set aside the impugned suspension order and remanded the matter back to the licensing authority for a fresh, independent consideration. The authority has been directed to afford the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and to evaluate the current status of the criminal cases—including the petitioner's subsequent acquittal—and his conduct since the grant of the licence. The exercise is to be completed within eight weeks.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026