Indians For Guns

I came across an interesting piece of information on internet, which states the following:

Possessing a weapon against a valid license issued by a competent authority is a Fundamental Right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. This has been observed by various High Courts in our country. So its not the discretion of the licensing authority to issue gun licenses. As long as the applicant has not been convicted or involved in a serious offense, a gun license has to be issued.
1] A citizen has a right to acquire,hold or dispose off arms under Article 19 [ 1 ] [f] of the Constitution. AIR 1954 Raj 264;1954 Cr LJ 1672.
2] Ilam Singh v.commissioner Meerut Div and others 1987 All Lj 416
3] Sheo Prasad v. dist magistrate Basti 1978 all wc 122 .
4] sheo shanker v. sub div Magistrate AIR 1973 All 293.
There are many judgments to this effect.

I would request legally knowledgeable members, if they can help find the text of above judgments and more similar judgments.

This is very interesting.
Gives our cause a shot of adrenaline.

Well gone GBM.

What about all India endorsement??

)))cheers!!!

punitjalan wrote:What about all India endorsement??

Then every licence should be endorsed "All India".

This is definitely encouraging...where did you find it..can you put link here

wondering if we can file class action law suite for RKBA based on that...

The legal section has a judgement given in favour of license applicant with quite a bit of detail covering most aspects of the grant of licenses and how they should be not granted only in the case of criminal antecedents of the applicant and/or the high probability of misuse of arms if granted license.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 7&start=15

"It is thus, indubitable that the right of a citizen to protect himself, his family
and property are integral part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution, subject to the limitations contained therein. In asserting such a right,
every citizen has a right to apply for an arms licence. While considering such
application, the licensing authority shall not only keep in view the statutory
provisions of the Act, but also the constitutional parameters relating to the
applicant’s fundamental right to life."

While most of the members may already agree with the learned Judge, this being put to the test of law and now having a ruling on paper itself is a victory of sorts. Any applicant in good standing having been rejected on frivolous grounds may now be assured that a license may be issued if they file a case.
Regards,
Anand

The above info and the cases no longer hold good. The cases were decided when under Article 19(1)(f) right to property was a fundamental right. In 1979 this was repelled and since then right to property no longer is a fundamental right. This was done to allow easy acquisition of land by the govt. under the Land Acquisition Act and to allow certain other land reforms. Now the right to property is only protected under Article 300A that was inserted to reconcile the repeal. The right now is a simple right and not a fundamental right. Fundamental rights can only be taken away of abridged in very limited circumstances . The court applies strict scrutiny test in cases they are infringed to come to a conclusion. For infringement of fundamental rights a citizen could directly approach the Supreme Court under article 32 but not anymore.

Article 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

For all other rights a reasonable standard test is applied. i.e. if the right was taken away for public benefit or for the govt.'s justified need it would be allowed. Even if the parliament passes a law to acquire certain property it would be taken away without compensation, but when it right to property was a fundamental right, it was very difficult to acquire property by the govt.

In the above cases right to property was argued as a fundamental right. Owning a firearm was also like owning a property and no one could take that right away unless prescribed by law. In the above cases the licenses of the petitioners were revoked without giving any opportunity of hearing. So the case was made on the ground that the property was confiscated without following the law of granting the opportunity of hearing.

I doubt if it could be argued on the same grounds. It can be stated that giving a notice and an opportunity of hearing is necessary but then thats all.

I have attached two cases that I could trace for everyones benefit.

Further to what Manmeet has written and unless I am mistaken, the Arms Act 1959 recognised "arms" as the "property" of the owners this was in of itself a departure from the old Arms Act of 1878 which did not. To the best of my knowledge the right to keep & bear arms is a legal right and not a fundamental right and it will remain so unless there is:
a) a constitutional amendment to that effect
OR
b) the Supreme Court reinterprets Article 21 of the constitution to equate it with RKBA