Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Gujarat High Court Quashes Age-Based Firearm License Renewal Refusal: "No Upper Age Limit Barrier under Arms Act" Affirms Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Gujarat High Court has overturned the decision of the authorities to refuse the renewal of a firearm license based on the applicant's age. The Single Bench, presided by Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, asserted that the Arms Act does not stipulate an upper age limit for holding a firearm license.

The case in question, PUNITBHAI BECHARBHAI PALSANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, revolved around the rejection of a firearm license renewal application submitted by a 79-year-old agriculturist and social worker. The application, originally filed on December 7, 2019, was rejected on the grounds of the applicant's age and the absence of a fitness certificate.

In her judgment, Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed, "The application seeking renewal of a firearm license could not have been rejected by the authorities upon their subjective satisfaction." The court referenced the Sorab Jehangir Bamji vs. State of Gujarat case, highlighting that age, particularly above the legal minimum, cannot be a sole factor for denying a firearm license.

The decision has set a precedent by clarifying the interpretation of Sections 13, 14, and 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. The court emphasized that income and age, which were the bases for the rejection, do not align with the Act's provisions regarding firearm licensing.

Legal experts view this decision as a significant step towards rationalizing the process of firearm licensing in India, particularly concerning the rights of senior citizens. The court's directive to the authorities to reconsider the application without the age and income considerations is seen as an affirmation of the rights of elder citizens to fair treatment under the law.

The judgment concluded with the High Court directing the relevant authorities to reassess the renewal application within four weeks. This ruling is expected to influence future decisions related to firearm licensing, particularly those involving senior applicants.

The High Court's decision has been welcomed by various social and legal circles, viewing it as a reinforcement of legal clarity and the rights of senior citizens in the country.

 

Decided on: 08-12-2023

PUNITBHAI BECHARBHAI PALSANA VS STATE OF GUJARAT 

Similar News