Gun licence is given to people only for self-defence, the Delhi High Court said. (Representational)
A person does not have a fundamental right to keep weapons, the Delhi High Court has said. Rejecting a private company official's plea for an arms licence, the high court said people keep weapons more for "showing off" and as a "status symbol" than for self-defence. The police and the Delhi lieutenant governor had also denied arms licence to the applicant before the matter reached court.
Upholding the decisions of the licensing authority and the lieutenant governor, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said, "We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves."
The court said the object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapons are available to people for self-defence, but it "does not mean that every individual should be given a licence". "The grant of arms licence is a privilege conferred by the [Arms] Act. There is no fundamental right of an individual to hold an arm," the court said.
"Possession of arms today has become a status symbol. Individuals seek to possess arms mostly for the purposes of showing off that they are influential people. Arms are even being used indiscriminately for celebratory firing at weddings," the court said.
The petitioner sought a gun licence saying he is responsible for dealing in cash up to Rs 3 lakh every day and needed protection. The court rejected his contention, saying the cash belonged to his company and if there was any need to protect the money, the company would have taken some safety measures.
"The amount of cash mentioned by the petitioner is only about Rs 2-3 lakh a day. Merely because an individual deals with cash of Rs 2-3 lakh a day and that also of a third party does not by itself show that there is any threat to that individual," the court said.
The lieutenant governor had expressed the same view while rejecting the man's plea for an arms licence. The court said the petitioner has not shown any circumstance that could create a perception that there is a threat to him.
"License to hold an arm is to be granted where there is a necessity... and not merely at the asking of an individual at his whims and fancies," the court said.