The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that prima facie, the Arms Act does not permit conversion of the nature of an arms licence from the sports category to the self-defence category, noting that neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision for such conversion. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 409]

The bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed that while Section 17 of the Arms Act permits variation of the conditions of a licence, it does not stipulate that the nature of the licence itself can be converted by the licensing authority.

The Court accordingly directed the District Magistrate, Bhopal, to examine the validity of the conversion and pass a reasoned order within 60 days.

"it would be conducive to the interest of justice that the validity of conversion of the category of the licence be examined by the issuing authority inasmuch as prima facie, neither the Arms Act nor the Rules contain any provision for conversion of the nature of licence, and Section 17 of the Arms Act only permits variation of conditions of a licence. However, Section 17 of the Arms Act nowhere stipulates that the nature of a licence itself can be converted by the authority component".

The petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order of April 2, 2026, passed by the Bhopal Collector. The petition claimed that, through a final order of March 18, 2026, the petitioner's arms licence was converted to the Self-Defence category from the Sports Category.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was granted a sports category arms licence prescribed in Form III of Schedule III of the Arms Rules, 2016. Thereafter, the authority issued a show cause notice and called him to explain why, after use, he did not produce empty cartridges before the competent authority to update the records.

The petitioner claimed that he filed a response to the said show cause notice and also intimated the authority that, apart from the sports category, he was also participating in politics as a Councillor. Thereafter, a 3-member committee submitted an inquiry report recommending that the category of his licence be converted from the sports category to the self-defence category.

Based on said recommendation, the District Magistrate passed an order on March 18, 2026, permitting conversion of the licence. Another report was later filed by the same three-member committee recommending cancellation of the petitioner's licence, noting that he was an inactive shooter and had not participated in national or international sporting events. Therefore, the District Magistrate passed another order of April 2, 2026, cancelling his licence. The petitioner contended that the April order was passed while ignoring the previous order of March 2026.

The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was an inactive sportsperson and was not utilizing his arms or cartridges, and therefore it was deemed appropriate to cancel his licence.

The court noted that during the currency of the licence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner informed the authorities that he also required the firearm for purposes of self-defence, particularly in view of his subsequent involvement in politics. The authorities considered the request and, by order of March 18, converted the existing licence.

However, the bench noted that the same three-member committee subsequently submitted another report, without referring to its earlier report. Based on the subsequent proceedings, the District Magistrate passed another order on April 2.

The court found that the subsequent order was passed in "complete ignorance of the previous order". The bench also notd that the earlier order was neither set asideby higher authrity or recalled by the authority that passed said order.

Accordingly, the court held that the order of April 2 was unsustainable and set aside the same. The court further refused to affirm the order of conversion of licence, directing the District Magistrate to assess whether such conversion was permissible under governing statutory framework.

The bench noted,

"In view of the aforesaid, without interfering with the order dated 18.03.2026 contained in Annexure P/6, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Bhopal to take a decision regarding the validity of conversion of arms licence within a period of 60 days from the date of appearance of the present petitioner by passing a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law".

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of while directing the petitioner to appear before the District Magistrate on October 26, 2026.

For Petitioner: Advocate Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel

For State: Government Advocate Mukund Agrawal