Firearm License Cannot Be Suspended On Mere Registration Or Pendency Of Criminal Case: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a firearms license cannot be suspended on mere registration or pendency of a criminal case. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 388]
The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh emphasized that while passing a suspension order, the licensing authority shall record independent and reasoned satisfaction under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
"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".
A petition was filed by a Security Guard employed at Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. He was challenging the order of December 19, 2024, passed by the Collector of Rajgarh, wherein his arms license was suspended for an indefinite period despite no allegations of misuse.
Per the petitioner, a crime was registered against his brother for obscenity (Section 296), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115), wrongful restraint (Section 126), and rioting (Section 191) of the BNS, and a cross case was also registered against him for obscenity, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation.
The petitioner was a retired army personnel, and he is the sole breadwinner of his family, and he required a valid arms license to continue his employment as a security guard. He claimed that his suspension has put his livelihood at risk. He further argued that after the suspension of the license, he voluntarily deposited the said firearm at the Narsinghgarh Police Station and that it was not seized from him for alleged misuse or use in the incident.
The petitioner claimed that the suspension of the license ought to be considered per Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, which empowers an authority to suspend the license for public peace or public safety. The petitioner claimed that the respondents failed to demonstrate any material circumstances establishing that continuation of the petitioner's license would be prejudicial to public safety or peace.
The counsel for the State admitted that the petitioner was a retired army personnel and was acquitted of the crime on September 10, 2026.
The bench noted that the primary issue was whether the petitioner had a right to possess the firearm.
Examining the Arms Act, the bench noted that it grants a license as a privilege extended by the State and thus cannot be claimed as a right.
However, the bench also emphasized
"In the impugned order the licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for suspending the licence. Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be suspended".
The bench therefore, held that the licensing authority did not exercise its powers in accordance with Section 17(3) of Arms Act and that they applied the power without appication of mind. Thus, the bench held that the impugned order was arbitrary and without recording subjective satisfiaction.
Accordingly, the bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court also remitted the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration within 8 weeks.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-35168-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 388
For Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Yadav
For State: Advocate General Hemant Sharma