Sikhs have right to wear Kirpans (swords) even in a Court Room

[Nihangsingh]

Dear all,

Recently, Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana high court in its judgement in the case "Dilawar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2016" has held that the sikhs have right to wear a Kirpan even in a court while deposing before the Judge. I am posting the link to the judgement hereunder:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178477505/

I am still to read the entire judgement but I felt the impulse to first share it at the forum as it is of a great interest to some of the members in particular and other in general.
However, let me quote some beautifully meaningful lines from the order:

"To quote Kapur Singh:
(The Sword) is by ancient tradition and association, a typical weapon of offence and defence, and
hence a fundamental right to wear, of the free man and woman, a sovereign individual. All
governments and rulers, whether ancient or modern, have and do insist to wear arms. Indeed in final analysis, a government or the state is sustained and supported by the organised might and
exclusive right of possession of arms, a citizen's right to wear arms being conceded as only of a
permissive and licensed character. It follows from this that the measure of freedom to possess and
wear arms by an individual is the precise measure of his freedom and sovereignty. Since a member
of the Khalsa brotherhood is pledged not to accept any alien restrictions on his/her civic freedom,
he/ she is enjoined upon to insist on and struggle for his or her unrestricted right to wear and
possess arms of offence and defence."

Kind regards

[chicky]

The word Kirpan in sikhism,is actually a joining of two words, 'kirpa' which stands for mercy, grace and kindness and 'An' stands for honour, dignity ,respect of self and others.And yes, a sikh wearing a kirpan represents a person who embodies all this, a " Hurray" is definitely due. It's a recognition long due and awaited.
A baptised Sikh, better known as a Khalsa Sikh is a "Sant-Sapie" - a Saint-Soldier: A saint first and then a soldier. So to satisfy this term, one must first become a saint and then a Soldier.

I am getting old...hense the lecture...

[goodboy_mentor]

The judgment is all right but what a mess this country has become, a sessions judge does not respect the Constitution! What kind of justice will he deliver? One needs "judgment" from High Court to practice the right to keep and bear arms that has been clearly guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is fashionable to blame the "British" for almost everything, but British left almost seventy years ago. Who is creating the mess now? And when will every citizen of this country able to enjoy the foundational natural human right to keep and bear arms? It is the main question.

[GNV]

The judgment is all right but what a mess this country has become, a sessions judge does not respect the Constitution! What kind of justice will he deliver? One needs "judgment" from High Court to practice the right to keep and bear arms that has been clearly guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is fashionable to blame the "British" for almost everything, but British left almost seventy years ago. Who is creating the mess now? And when will every citizen of this country able to enjoy the foundational natural human right to keep and bear arms? It is the main question.

[Nihangsingh]

The judgment is all right but what a mess this country has become, a sessions judge does not respect the Constitution! What kind of justice will he deliver? One needs "judgment" from High Court to practice the right to keep and bear arms that has been clearly guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is fashionable to blame the "British" for almost everything, but British left almost seventy years ago. Who is creating the mess now? And when will every citizen of this country able to enjoy the foundational natural human right to keep and bear arms? It is the main question.

we need to share it widely on every media so that the people are aware far and wide . Once they are aware of rights they have they would not hesitate to enjoy whatever limited freedom they have. when High court recognise this, it became absolute law of the land. Hence, this ruling should be with every such person who thinks that some sessions judge( or every such other authority) needs enlightenment on the issue.

[ankur_ank007]

The judgment is all right but what a mess this country has become, a sessions judge does not respect the Constitution! What kind of justice will he deliver? One needs "judgment" from High Court to practice the right to keep and bear arms that has been clearly guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is fashionable to blame the "British" for almost everything, but British left almost seventy years ago. Who is creating the mess now? And when will every citizen of this country able to enjoy the foundational natural human right to keep and bear arms? It is the main question.

Agreed Sir,

In my case my application was rejected and when I asked for the reason, I was said that "It's my arbitrary power granted under Sec- 14 of the Arms Act", when I tried to reason, I was abused and hurled out of the office. I wrote to CJi and alas.... the reply came "SCI will not entertain any letter on the subject...."

I am planning to move to Texas.... no judge/bureaucrat respects Constitution of India here..... I lost my faith....

[captrakshitsharma]

Another interesting rule is that all Sikhs are allowed to carry a Kripan of a specified size on all domestic flights on their person....

[goodboy_mentor]

Ankur, as I said earlier reasoning rarely works with power drunk babus. Their inflated egos get hurt. Instead of verbally asking for reason you could have sent a registered letter asking for reasons. If no reply then could have used RTI. Once you got the reason in writing, could have approached appellate authority. If still rejected could have approached High Court for writ. In this way you would have all the documentary proofs with you to support your case.

Supreme Court or High Court rarely intervenes if the procedure in the enactment is not completely followed. Also Supreme Court will not intervene unless you make some valid grievance under Part III of the Constitution.