This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 23
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 3268 of 2012
Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt Of Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Anshuman Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,A.S.G.,Csc,I.H.Farooqi
Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
1.Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, A.G.A. and counsel for union of India. We had the advantage of hearing Prof. Himanshu Rai on his report as well as Sri Navnit Sikera, I.G. Women Cell, U.P.
2.Present writ petition was taken up as a public cause and treated as a P.I.L. in view of number of deaths in celebratory firing.
3.We had restrained the licence holders from indulging in any sort of celebratory firing, resulting in killing of innocent persons, going unattended and unpunished. Perturbed over the large number of arms held by private citizens as against held by police force of State (5:1), vide order dated 07.10.2013 issuance of fresh arms licences was restricted.
4.Vide order dated 03.05.2012, Assistant Solicitor General of India was directed to place on record the stand of the Central Government. Thereafter, repeated opportunities were given to counsel for Central Government. Lastly, on 18.09.2014, Sri Pandey, learned A.S.G. promised to take up the matter with Secretary, Home, Govt. of India and place before this Court the stand of Central Government in the light of report submitted by Professor Himanshu Rai from I.I.M., Lucknow but this assurance remained unfulfilled. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to give last opportunity to Central Government to place its stand on the point of celebratory firing and the ratio in which arms licences have been granted to citizens in all the States and U.T. vis-a-vis held by the police force and what should be the ideal situation. Central Government was directed to come out with a stand as to what should be the mode or methodology for maintaining equilibrium between the arms held by the police force and citizens. Concentration of arms in particular State or region is cause of concern for the court and should be for the Central government, as such specific stand and policy has to be placed before this Court by the next date. This becomes important as State Govt. passes on the buck on the plea that licences are granted under the directive of Central Govt.
5.Sri Chandra Prakash, ADG (Rules) has filed affidavit detailing the steps taken by the State Govt.
6.State Government has not clarified its stand on creating arms free zone as ordered by us earlier. We had indicated that public places like Public Parks, Bus Stands, Railway Stations, Cinema Halls, Malls, State Guest Houses/Circuit Houses, Civil Secretariat, High Court, Airports, Government Offices especially where contracts or public tenders are given etc. should be made arms free zone. Query of this Court has been conveniently avoided in the affidavit filed by Sri Chandra Prakash. They should come out with the clear plan whether Government wants to do it or not.
7.From the report submitted by the State Government, it is apparent that 55 persons are holding more than three arms licences which is not legally possible that is why there should not be any difficulty to take action against these 55 licence holders.
8.In the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary on August 23, 2013, it was stated that the arms licence in excess of three, will be cancelled by the Licencing Authority and arms will be deposited with the Police Station within 19 days. No statement has been made regarding compliance of this order. We direct the State Government to inform if the licences in excess of three have been cancelled and arms deposited.
9.State Government will also inform about the action taken against 5730 licence holders against whom criminal trial was pending as well as against 1061 licence holders against whom F.I.R. has been registered in the State.
10.From the affidavit filed by Sri Chandra Prakash, ADG(Rules) and Member Secretary, Monitoring Committee, appointed by this Court, it is apparent that State Government had issued Government Orders on 30th September, 2014 and 9th October, 2014 requiring District Magistrates to complete the process of licence cancellation where arms were used in celebratory firing.
11.From the Chart submitted alongwith affidavit, it is apparent that more than 50 cases are still pending before the District Magistrates, Bareilly district being the major shareholder. By the next date, an affidavit be filed regarding progress of remaining cases.
12.It should be further informed as to what action against the licence holders having criminal cases, is taken by the authorities. If there is stay order from any court, details thereof be also given. It is apparent from the Chart, annexure no. 4 that large number of persons have not been touched. Special mention may be made of districts Aligarh, Allahabad, Azamgarh, Banda, Chandauli, Deoria, Fatehpur, Firozabad, Ghazipur, Hamirpur, Hardoi, Hathras, Jaunpur, Kanpur Nagar, Kashiram Nagar, Lucknow, Mathura, Mirzapur, Moradabad, Muzzafarnagar, Pratapgarh, Sitapur and Sultanpur. State Government will call for details from the concerned districts alongwith reasons and submit the same before this Court.
13.In para 8 of the affidavit, it is stated that question of providing State security to persons who are already having arms should be considered. We would like State government to answer whether it proposes to remove the security of persons holding arms licence and if so in what manner. State Govt. may consider exempting constitutional post holders, govt. officers and members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly/council.
14.So far as information from other States is concerned, only general information has been given. Information of Delhi, however, shows that arms held by private persons in Delhi are less than the arms held by Police Force. That appears to be the ideal situation.
15.State Government would also give its response to following suggestions :
(a) Making biometrics identification compulsory before granting or renewing licences.
(b) Satisfaction of District Magistrates regarding capability of handling arms which would include physical fitness.
(c) Verification of details maintained by the District Magistrates with record of police station.
(d) Verification of address of licence holders and their antecedents.
(e) Medical certificates for licence holders aged more than 65 years, from the C.M.O. especially having regard to their capability to handle arms.
(f) The place where licence holders have learnt and practiced arms-handling and satisfaction of SP/SSP regarding training at the time of granting/renewal of licence.
(g) Cancellation of licence where arm was not purchased even after expiry of the six months from the date of issuance of licence.
(h) Verification of I.D. Proof.
(i) Satisfaction with regard to no bank/govt. dues against the applicant or members of the family.
(j) Verification of economic status particularly having regard to the income tax.
(k) Fixing a ceiling for buying fresh cartridges and verification of cartridge used before issuing fresh ammunition.
(l) Submission of bank chalan before depositing the arms with arm dealer/Police Station in order to check the back dating.
(m) Launch of voluntary surrender scheme where licence holders may be asked to surrender the arm licences voluntarily.
Verification of registers maintained by every arm dealer annually/periodically.(o) Any licence in excess of one can be granted/renewed only with the approval of State Government. Similarly, licence for Pistol, revolver, Rifle or long barrel gun (assault weapon) etc., be granted only with the approval of the State Government that too on the basis of joint report of DM/SP regarding need and propriety of arm licence.
(p) Three-not-three, a lethal weapon given by State Govt to Police personnel if should not be replaced by smaller and less lethal weapon for being used against fellow citizens.
(q) Character, mental stability and capability to handle arms should be to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate himself before granting licence.
(r) Involving village Pradhans, owners of the Banquet Hall and Lodge to ensure that celebratory firing is not resorted to during the marriage or other functions.
16.These may be done not only when fresh arm licences are issued but at the time of renewal also, in the light of letter dated 31st March, 2010 issued by Secretary, Home Department to all the State Governments.
17.So far as, national data-base of arms licence is concerned, it is apparent that State Government is already vigorously pursuing the matter with the District Magistrates which would, up to a large extent check the duplication of licences.
18.State Government would also inform the details of licences issued by the District Magistrates after 07.10.2013 alongwith reason therefor.
19.List this matter for further orders on 17th December, 2014. Sri Navneet Sikera who is present today is also requested to assist the Court on the next date. Professor Himanshu Rai may send further inputs to Home Department for being placed before this Court.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014
kkv/
