I agree that the problem is certainly not new, but not many people know the reason behind the problem. I have only tried to explain the reasons behind the problem.There is nothing new that you are saying that I have already not stated in my post.
By new policy do you mean MHA circular to Home Secretaries of all States and Union territories given on 31.3.2010 or Arms Amendment Bill 2010 that is pending approval of Parliament?Per the new policy the courts do not have to give any directions since the policy itself mandates that all applications be disposed off within 60 days
If you mean MHA circular, it has no legal value and not binding on Courts. No MHA notification, circular or policy be sent to undermine an act of Parliament i.e. Arms Act 1959 or the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Has any LA given in writing that it is denying issue of license because of MHA circular/policy? Can you please say why some LAs have simply stopped receiving license applications? Why they are not receiving applications as before and rejecting them as before by giving in written that MHA circular is the reason for rejecting arms license, if the MHA circular is legal?
If you mean Arms Amendment Bill 2010, it is still pending with Parliament. If we assume that it gets passed in its original form that was tabled in Lok Sabha, it will still be open to judicial review. No law of Parliament can be passed in violation of fundamental rights of citizens. If it is passed it is ultra vires. Also regardless of any law passed by parliament, in order to get their fundamental rights enforced citizens can any time approach High Court under Article 226 and Supreme Court under Article 32.
I did read that case long time back but I do not remember it properly. But I have given possible reasons in my reply in my previous post above. Can you please confirm that if no facts were suppressed by applicant in his license application and the case was contested in court as a matter of his fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution?The case I have cited was out in the papers
I agree, judiciary cannot interfere in day to day functioning of executive. But if any action of executive is shown to court violating the fundamental rights in Part III, judiciary is fully empowered under Article 266 and 32 to get that fixed.the judiciary for the most part does not like to interfere with the role of the executive
Are you talking about these mentioned at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 89#p113930 ? and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 7&start=15The few cases in court wrt grant /addition of fire arm etc that are documented on this board haven’t really met with any outcome as yet.
If yes then:
1) Are you saying that these 2 people were not issued arms licenses even after directions were given by court to the LA?
2) Or are you saying that all the later applicants even after these judgments are still facing the same difficulty?
If you are choosing the choice 2, then my answer is: Courts give only those directions for which the relief is being sought by the applicant. In both the cases applicants went to court seeking directions only for themselves and not for all people meaning for directions to be given to the government to correct the problem creating section 13 of Arms Act 1959. The real problem is that people do not know that RKBA is their fundamental right and there is a big shortcoming in Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 which is talking of "prescribed time" only and not "prescribing a specific time" for which almost every applicant is approaching High Court only for himself, to get a specific time for his case or somehow "please" the LA(either by pillar to post or whatever he "thinks" best). I have tried to explain this in my post above at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 53#p118753 This problem of approaching High Court for almost every applicant will continue till a clear fixed time is given to LA to decide to either issue the license or reject the issue of license giving reasons for the same.
As I have explained above the shortcoming in Section 13, the applicant does not appear "genuine" to the LA unless he is some big shot. Or he gets directions from High Court forcing the LA to do whatever is wanted by Arms Act 1959 within the time period prescribed by High Court.Sure in a genuine case there can be a positive result,but that would be considered an exception rather than a rule.
I have already shown you the reason in Section 13, why applicant has to run either "pillar to post" or to High Court because there is no fixed time within which LA has to decide anything. LA can keep sitting on the file indefinitely without either issuing the license or denying the same with reasons.I don’t know of any such case,if you do pl do share the details it will help many a member here who is running form pillar to post.
Having said all this, I would like to say that law is nothing but strong logic and reason that has been codified and put on paper. If a flawed logic is put in a law,then it is bound to create problems for everybody except few high and mighty. This is precisely what is happening. MHA is issuing a policy to favor the high and mighty. People are running here and there in search of "some" solution, but are not able to find and understand where is the real problem. In my opinion the problem has two aspects bcause most of the people are not aware of the following:
1) RKBA is the fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. I have tried to explain this at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785
2) The logical faults in Arms Act 1959 which I have tried to explain in this post and also my previous posts preceding this post.
“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” - Thomas Paine
. I don't have any other ideas on the issue. This is the fate of most Indian citizens.
And secondly ask your father to act. he should be in picture. That inspector needs to be told whats not correct. This yr father can do, as he is comdt (sg) ie commandant who senior to ssp.