Threat To Legal Heir's Life Not Necessary To Transfer Arms License If Licensee Is Over 70-Yrs Or Held License For 25+ Yrs: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, is made during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs for transfer of licence and transfer of arm and there will be no requirement for the transferee...
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, is made during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs for transfer of licence and transfer of arm and there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha. The court directed respondent No.3 (Commissioner of Police, Managaluru) to process the application of the petitioner in terms of clause (b) of Rule 25(1) and issue a licence within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The petitioner's father owns a valid arms licence for a .32 caliber revolver. Desiring to give the said revolver to the petitioner, the petitioner applied for a grant of arms licence in terms of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 ('the Rules' for short). Initially the said application came to be rejected on the ground that there is no life threat to the petitioner.
On appeal having been filed, the appeal came to be allowed and the order set aside, despite which an endorsement has been issued on 24.07.2025 that the arms licence could not be issued to the petitioner since there is no life threat established by the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the application which has been filed by the petitioner is under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules and not on account of there being any life threat to the petitioner. When such transfer is sought to be made, there is no requirement for establishing threat to life as such and the consideration on the part of the respondents are not in accordance with Rule 25 of the Arms Rules.
The bench referred to the Clause (b) of Rule 25 (1) of the Arms Rule which provides for in any other case, when the licensee on attaining the age of 70 years or on holding the firearm for 25 years, whichever is earlier, the licensing authority may grant the licence to any legal heir nominated by him.
It said “In the present case, the petitioner's father is 75-year-old and he has been holding a licence from 1971 that is for a period of almost 54 years. Thus, the dual conditions under Clause (b) of Rule 25 (1) of the Arms Rule being satisfied, what is only required under the proviso is that the other conditions are satisfied and there are no adverse remarks in the police report as regards the legal heir.”
Following which it held “In terms of Rule 25 of the Arms Rule, the conditions in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 25(1) of the Arms Rule being satisfied, the respondents could not have rejected the application on the ground that there is no threat to life established by the petitioner.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate Leelesh Krishna for Petitioner.
AGA K.P Uashodha for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
Case Title: MICHAEL MAHESH CHRIS SALDANHA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30532 OF 2025