More than two weapons are not allowed to shooting clubs member’s: Delhi HC
D.D:01-08-2022
Delhi High Court Under the Arms Act 1959, individuals who are members of associations or clubs such as the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) are not permitted to permanently possess more than two firearms [Meet Malhotra v Union of India and Others].
Justice Yashwant Varma ruled that while clubs, rifles associations, shooting ranges, etc. are permitted to possess an unlimited number of firearms, individual members of such associations or clubs are not.
“Acceptance of this argument would lead to absurd results in which a person who is a member of an organisation or club would be permitted by law to possess any number of firearms. This would effectively place the individual on par with firearms dealers and rifle clubs “court stated.
Justice Varma ruled that this cannot possibly be construed as the intent of the section.
The Court added that while these members may be permitted to hold and possess ammunition in excess of what is otherwise prescribed for an individual under the 2016 Arms Rules, this cannot be construed as granting them any special or distinct status under the Arms Act.
“…the Act neither recognises nor confers a special or distinct status on members of the NRAI or State Rifle Associations or their affiliates on a fundamental level.” Neither the Act nor the Rules confer a special status on the members of such organisations. “Although a person may be a member of such an association or club, his individual right to bear or possess a firearm remains subject to and governed by the provisions of the Act that apply to any other ordinary citizen who chooses to apply for a licence,” the Court stated.
The Court emphasised that the only category of licences envisioned to hold or possess weapons with no upper limit is for arms manufacturers and dealers, including NRAI, State Rifle Associations, affiliated District Rifle Associations, shooting clubs, shooting ranges, or the sports authorities of respective State governments.
The Court was considering a petition by Meet Malhotra challenging a communication from the ACP (Licensing) dated August 31, 2021 informing him of the limit of two firearms per individual per Section 3(2) of the Arms Act after the 2019 amendment.
The communication specified that the condition also applied to members of any rifle club or organisation.
It was reported that the petitioner held licences for three firearms and joined the NRAI in 2011.
Malhotra argued that a member of a rifle association is properly recognised under the Act as falling outside of Section 3(2) of the act, and that the 2019 amendment cannot be interpreted as requiring members of such a club to surrender any firearms in excess of two.
The argument was also made that the phrase “or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licenced or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practise” in Section 3(3) of the Act is susceptible to being interpreted as granting them permission to carry or possess more than two firearms.
The Court observed that the exemption from Section 3(2) is stipulated in Section 3 (3).
According to the Court, section 3(3) initially refers to a firearm dealer.
While the term “dealer” is not defined in the Act, Rule 2(19) of the 2016 Rules provides the following definition:
“(19) “dealer” means a person who, in the course of a trade or business, buys, sells, tests (other than proof-test), exports, imports, transfers, or keeps for sale arms or ammunition, and includes the Sports Authority of India (SAI), the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI), and State Rifle Associations affiliated with NRAI or directly affiliated units of NRAI;”
The Court noted that the definition of dealer as outlined in the 2016 Rules would encompass not only a person engaged in the trade or business of firearms, but also the NRAI, State Rifle Associations, and their affiliated units.
“The logic and rationale behind exempting dealers from the two-gun limit are neither difficult to comprehend nor obscure. A person engaged in the business of selling, purchasing, exporting, or importing firearms would obviously have more than two firearms in his possession. Similarly, NRAI and other rifle clubs and associations would undoubtedly have more than two firearms at any given time. In any event, the express exemption orders issued by the Union Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 41 put to rest any doubts that might have been remotely entertained in this regard “The sole judge ruled.
The Court also determined that Section 3(3) is based on the possibility that a member of a club or association may temporarily hold or possess a firearm that is otherwise licenced to a club or association.
“The provisions of Section 3(3) cannot be disassembled or broken up. It must be coherently read. In light of the foregoing, the Court reaches the conclusion that a member of an organisation or club is statutorily permitted to temporarily possess a firearm in excess of two only if he is holding or in possession of an additional weapon licenced to the organisation or organisation.”
The Court therefore denied the petition.
Malhotra and the attorneys Ravi SS Chauhan, Pallak Singh, and Chantha Channan appeared in person.
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.
MEET MALHOTRA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
