-
by sayum
16 February 2026 7:15 AM
“India’s Constitution Doesn’t Confer a Right to Bear Arms—It Demands Their Strict Regulation” — In a momentous and systemic intervention into the rising threat posed by illegal firearms, the Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu proceeding, directing the formation of expert-level State and National Committees to combat the proliferation and misuse of unlicensed and illicit arms. The two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan unequivocally held that widespread use of unlicensed firearms severely endangers the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and called for coordinated enforcement of the Arms Act, 1959, and its 2019 amendments.
The Court warned that if left unchecked, the circulation of smuggled and unregulated firearms would “sound the death knell of the rule of law”, while emphasizing that unlike in the United States, there is no fundamental right to bear arms under the Indian Constitution.
“Thanks to the founding fathers of the Constitution of India, unlike the American Constitution, we have not given the right to the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right,” observed the Court, stressing that “Right to life guaranteed under Article 21... is the primary responsibility of the State.”
“Despite the Law, the Ground Reality Is Alarming—Unlicensed Firearms Proliferate Outside State Control”
Supreme Court Highlights Failures in Enforcement Despite Robust Legal Framework Under Arms Act and 2019 Amendments
The genesis of this action traces back to a withdrawn Special Leave Petition involving a Section 302 IPC offence committed with an unlicensed firearm, prompting the Court to retain seisin of the larger issue. The bench observed during earlier hearings that cases involving unlicensed weapons had become disturbingly frequent, and stated:
“It is again one of those cases... where an unlicensed firearm was used... This phenomenon is very disturbing.”
The Court noted that despite a comprehensive statutory regime under the Arms Act, 1959, and the Arms Rules, 2016, the enforcement remains lackadaisical, allowing a dangerous parallel ecosystem of illegal arms factories, smuggling networks, and criminal syndicates to flourish.
In a series of affidavits filed by the Union of India in 2023 and 2024, it was acknowledged that there had been a sharp rise in seizures of illegal arms between 2017–2021, even after the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced stringent penalties, including life imprisonment for organized trafficking and celebratory firing.
“Despite the existence of law, rules, and a regulatory framework, the implementation... is ineffective. Proliferation of 'factories' and 'workshops' for manufacture of unlicensed arms... is on the rise and a matter of concern,” the Court remarked.
“We’re Not Just Dealing With Law—We’re Fighting Fear, Violence, and the Collapse of Peaceful Civil Life”
Supreme Court Adopts Amicus Curiae’s Classification of the Threat, Calls for Eradication of Smuggled and Illegally Manufactured Weapons
Appointing Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu as Amicus Curiae, the Court adopted his incisive classification of firearms into four categories: licensed and lawfully used, licensed but misused, smuggled arms, and domestically manufactured unlicensed arms. The Court particularly emphasized categories III and IV—smuggled arms and illicitly manufactured domestic weapons—as “the real potential threat to the peace and security of the people.”
The Court reproduced the Amicus' stark warning: “People live under constant fear in areas where the free flow of illegal arms and ammunition is prevalent... The crime rate involving illegal arms is on the increase, and it is slowly slipping out of control.”
Embracing this view, the Court directed the eradication of these categories, while also mandating that even licensed arms be subject to stringent regulatory scrutiny to prevent misuse.
“Time for Administrative Accountability—Nationwide Committees to Draft Action Plans with Expert Oversight”
Supreme Court Orders Formation of High-Powered Committees in Every State and at the National Level Under BPR&D
Recognizing that existing regulatory frameworks had failed in implementation, the Court directed the immediate constitution of five-member Committees in each State and Union Territory, chaired by the Chief Secretary and comprising top bureaucratic and forensic officials. The mandate of these Committees includes:
Drafting State-level Action Plans for full implementation of the Arms Act and Arms Rules
Conducting audits and inspections of both licensed and unlicensed firearms workshops
Developing data systems to track production, possession, transport, and use of arms
Proposing preventive measures against arms smuggling
Undertaking empirical studies on criminal use of firearms and formulating targeted responses
These plans were to be submitted to the Court within 10 weeks, and would now be reviewed by a newly constituted National Committee of Experts, as per the Union Government’s Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2025.
The Committee, chaired by the Director General of the Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) and comprising top officials from the Intelligence Bureau, NIA, and Home Departments of various States, is tasked with coordinating nationwide efforts and ensuring uniform enforcement of the Act.
“The objective is to ensure effective implementation of the Act... and curb the menace of illegal firearms and unauthorised use of legal firearms across the country,” the order stated.
The Court further ordered that the Amicus Curiae’s suggestions dated 29.10.2023 be treated as an annexure to the judgment, thus making them judicially endorsed directions to guide policy implementation.
“We Are Dealing With Crimes That Threaten Society and the State—Effective Implementation Is Non-Negotiable”
Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment at Weak State Enforcement, Asks for Coordinated, Long-Term Action
The Court minutely reviewed data from affidavits filed by the Union and various States, and declared:
“Apart from local production, smuggling of arms and ammunition used for crime against society and the State is another matter of concern.”
It warned that mere legislation was insufficient without administrative will and coordination, and emphasized that proliferation of weapons outside the State’s legal monopoly is a direct affront to constitutional governance.
“We Place on Record Our Appreciation” — Supreme Court Commends Amicus and Counsel for Collective Effort to Safeguard Article 21
In a rare moment of collegial gratitude, the bench recorded its “sincere appreciation” for the role of Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, and several State counsels, noting their contributions to framing a systemic and enforceable policy framework. The Court also granted liberty to intervenors and civil society groups to submit suggestions to the Expert Committee for further refinement.
“We direct that the Committee of Experts will consider the suggestions... and ensure that the concerns expressed by this Court are taken into consideration for the effective implementation of the Arms Act,” it said.
The Supreme Court’s suo motu action in Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a constitutional milestone, transforming a withdrawn SLP into a national judicial intervention against the menace of illegal arms. By combining legislative analysis, constitutional reasoning under Article 21, expert consultation, and bureaucratic accountability, the Court has built a blueprint for national action against a threat that has long festered in lawless corners of the country.
“It is of the greatest significance to preserve the life of all, that resort must not be made to unlicensed firearms. In particular, if unlicensed firearms are freely used, this will sound the death knell of rule of law.”
This is not merely a criminal law judgment—it is a reaffirmation of the State’s primary constitutional duty: to secure life and liberty from those who wield violence beyond the reach of law.
Date of Decision: 11 August 2025
