No Distinct Status For Rifle Association Members Under Arms Act; They Can't Possess More Than 2 Firearms : Delhi High Court
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that a member of a Rifles' Association or Club cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959. Justice Yashwant Varma stated that more than two firearms could only be held by a member on a temporary basis if holding of the additional weapon was licensed to the club or association that the...
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that a member of a Rifles' Association or Club cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959. Justice Yashwant Varma stated that more than two firearms could only be held by a member on a temporary basis if holding of the additional weapon was licensed to the club or association that the said member was a part of.
Briefly, the facts of the case were that the petitioner had acquired a firearm license and was a life member of the National and State Rifles Associations. He acquired a point 22 bore target pistol in addition to the point 22 Rifle and point 32 revolver, already endorsed on his license.
In 2019, the Arms Act, 1959 came to be amended through the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 and reduced the number of firearms a person could bear from three to two. Prior to the amendments, Section 3 allowed persons to hold up to three firearms. Persons referred to in Section 3(3), which included dealers of firearms and Rifles' Association or Clubs, were excluded from the operation of Section 3(2) of the Act.
Thus, after the number of firearms that could be possessed was reduced from three to two, the Joint Commissioner directed the petitioner to surrender one of his firearms.
The petitioner submitted that as per Section 3 of the Act, by virtue of being a member of the NRAI, he stood absolved from the obligation to deposit a firearm.
He further submitted that the fact that a member of a club or association was treated distinctly was also evident from the provisions of Rule 40 of the Act which recognized the distinct character of members of the NRAI or any other affiliated State Rifle Association or Shooting Club. The petitioner also referred to a notification issued by the Central Government which granted exemption to various categories of sportspersons engaged in shooting, enabling them to hold more than two weapons.
Per contra, the respondent contended that sub-sections (2) and (3) could not be interpreted as placing no restrictions on the number of firearms that may be held by a member of a rifle club or association.
Here, at the outset, the court stated that it was well settled that neither the Constitution nor the Arms Act conferred an indefeasible right upon citizens to hold, possess or bear firearms.
The court, while assessing the Act, opined that while a person may be a member of a Rifles' association or club, his individual right to bear or possess a firearm was still controlled by the provisions of the Act.
The court further held that Rule 40, as referred to be the petitioners, could not be construed as giving a member of a club or association with a special or distinct status. The court stated that the rule only dealt with the quantity of firearms that may be possessed by different categories of sportspersons and sports organisations.
Finally, regarding the contention of Petitioners under Section 3(2) of the Act, the court noted that the class of members excluded from restrictions on arms included dealer in firearms, NRAI and State Rifle Associations and their affiliated units.
The court stated that the logic behind exempting dealers from the restriction of two firearms was that a person who was engaged in the trade of selling, buying, exporting or importing firearms would obviously have in his possession more than two firearms. Similarly NRAI and other such clubs would also have more than two firearms at any given point of time. However, that did not mean that an individual member of an association or club would be entitled to hold firearms without any maximum limit.
The court stated that allowing members of a club to hold arms without a limit would be absurd and–
"(It) would essentially put such an individual at par with a dealer of firearms and rifle associations and clubs. That cannot possibly be construed as being the intent of Section 3(2)."
The Court failed to find any justification to accept the contention of the petitioner that members of associations or clubs were exempt from the restrictions imposed by Section 3(2) of the Act.
However, the court also recognised that while Section 3(3) could have stopped at exempting dealers from the restrictions imposed by Section 3(2), it additionally catered to a situation where a member of an association or club was allowed to be in possession of more than two firearms. Thus, the Court came to the conclusion that a member of an association or club was permitted to temporarily be in possession of more than two firearms only in case he was holding an additional weapon which was licensed to the club or association that he was a part of.
CASE TITLE: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737