Member Of Rifle Club Or Association Can Possess Third Firearm Only For Target Practice, Participation In Competition: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot possess a third firearm other than for the limited period of using it for target practice or participation in a competition.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the order of a single judge which held that such a member cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959.

The bench dismissed the appeal moved by Meet Malhotra, a lawyer and life member of National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) who had three firearms duly endorsed on his license, challenging the order of the single judge.

Prior to the 2019 Amendment, section 3(2) of the Arms Act permitted a person to acquire and possess three firearms. The amendment reduced the number from three to two firearms.

The question before the court was whether a member of the Rifle Club or Rifle Association, which is licensed and recognized by the Central Government, can, in addition to two firearms, possess a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice or not?

While dismissing the appeal, the court rejected Malhotra’s contention that the purpose of bringing the 2019 amendment was only for curbing illegal arms trafficking alone and that the amendment is to be seen only in that context.

Observing that the purpose of the 2019 amendment was to bring down the number of firearms in the possession of persons holding a license, the court said:

“This fact is more evident from the fact that prior to 1983 a person was entitled to possess more than three fire arms which was reduced to three by way of an amendment in 1983 and by the present amendment, i.e., amendment of 2019, the figure has further been reduced to two from three. It is in this backdrop that Section 3 of the Arms Act needs to be interpreted.”

Perusing section 13 of the Act which provides for the grant of arms licenses, the court said that a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot acquire, possess or carry more than two firearms but they can use the third firearm only for target practice for which they have to obtain a license under the provision.

“A member of the rifle club or rifle association holding two fire arms cannot acquire, possess and carry the third firearm even for target practice as that possession would become illegal subjecting him to punishment under the Arms Act. Had it been the intention of the Central Government that a member of a rifle club or rifle association can acquire, possess and carry a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle firearm at all times, then legislature would have not restricted the Section by inserting the word “using”,” the court said.

The bench thus ruled that the member is permitted to only use a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice even if he has two other firearms.

It also said that such a member does not fall under the exempted category under section 41 of the Act which gives power to the Central Government to grant exemption to categories of persons from the provisions of the Arms Act.

“Notifications have been issued by the Government permitting sports persons to hold fire arms more than the specified limit. A special exemption for possessing a third firearm which includes a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle in addition to two fire arms cannot be read into Section 3(3) of the Arms Act as it will become contrary to the object of the Government in reducing the number of firearms which can be held by a person,” the court observed.

The court also said that the permission that has been granted to possess a third firearm to the member is only for using it for target practice for which a license is required under section 13(3) of the Act.

“Had such a permission not been given, then the possession of a third fire arm by a member of a rifle association or rifle club even for target practice would become illegal making such a person vulnerable to the rigours under the Act,” the court said.

Title: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318

Click Here To Read Judgment