mundaire wrote:GoodBoyMentor, wishing for something doesn't make it real! If you truly believe that RKBA has been secretly hidden somewhere in our constitution, may I point you to the debate on this issue in the constituent assembly - where this matter was discussed and it was decided to abide by the wisdom of the father of the constitution and not to include RKBA amongst the list of fundamental rights.
Cheers!
Abhijeet
mundair, RKBA is not secretly hidden in the Constitution, rather it is clearly mentioned in the Constitution as explained hereunder:
1. Since arms are recognized as fundamental right under Part III, that is why Article 19(1)(b) says "and without arms". If arms are not part of Article 19 or Part III, the question of saying "and without arms" in Article 19(1)(b) does not arise.
2. Since fundamental right to assemble peaceably and with arms exists under Article 19, that is why there exists corresponding fundamental duty of citizens to "protect" and "defend" the State under Articles 51A(c) & (d). Protection and defense of the nation is done with arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives and not bare hands. If there is no RKBA, then citizens cannot have such duty. They are sovereign citizens as per the preamble of the Constitution, thus they cannot have duty without corresponding rights. Also the preamble mentions that citizens will "secure" for themselves...... this "secure" cannot be done without arms.
3. Since arms are fundamental right, that is why on behalf of the citizens, under the Article 246(5) the Central Government can legislate on arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives.
Even if we agree for the limited sake of this discussion that Part III does not recognize RKBA, then are we agreeing that RKBA also does not exist for the Indian State, since Part III guarantees equality? If yes then how is the Indian State issuing license for something over which it has no right?
As per Article 367(1), General Clauses Act 1897 shall apply for the interpretation of Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an act of the legislature. Courts have also ruled that not only the general definitions given in General Clauses Act, but also the general rules of construction given therein are applicable to the Constitution. Therefore the question of going into preamble, objects and reasons or debates does not arise because the above mentioned Articles are very clear in themselves.
Even if we read the debates, because of fresh volatile experience of 1947, the main fear of Constituent Assembly was armed peaceable assembly turning violent. That is why peaceable assembly without arms is preferred mode of combination of rights under Article 19. This does not mean that combination of peaceable assembly with arms does not exist.
Utterance of Father of the Constitution does not carry much meaning since the plain reading of Constitution itself is very clear about RKBA and the right to equality exists in Part III. At the best his utterances can be dismissed as done without application of mind or for just public consumption.
"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992
