Citation: Suraj Kant Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3169 of 2024, Patna High Court| CNR No. BRHC010074072024
While there is no fundamental right to possess a firearm, an arms licence cannot be refused on vague grounds or only because the police did not recommend it. The licensing authority must give objective, recorded reasons and consider the applicant’s trade or profession under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016. Where the applicant’s job involves regular handling and movement of large amounts of cash, the absence of a specific or imminent threat is not by itself a valid ground for refusal.
The Patna High Court has set aside the rejection of an arms licence application by a Vaishali man who runs a bank customer service point, holding that the authorities ignored the threat to him from regularly carrying cash.
Suraj Kant Kumar runs an SBI customer service point in Vaishali, where he must regularly withdraw and carry cash for deposits and withdrawals by customers. He applied for an arms licence in February 2021 and, after a court order directed a decision, the District Magistrate rejected it in April 2023 only because the Superintendent of Police had not recommended it. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed his appeal in November 2023. He argued that Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016 requires the nature of an applicant’s trade or profession to be considered, that the local police station’s Station House Officer had supported his application, that he had no criminal record, and that customer service points in Hajipur had been looted before. The State said that the licensing authority is not bound by the SHO’s recommendation and that he had not proved a threat. Justice Alok Kumar noted that there is no fundamental right to bear arms and that a licence is a regulated privilege, but listed safeguards, such as recorded objective reasons being required to refuse a licence, a mere FIR not being enough to refuse it, police reports being weighed properly, and a licence not being refused only because there is no “specific or imminent threat”. He found that the District Magistrate rejected the application only on the SP’s non-recommendation, without considering Rule 12(3)(a) or the SHO’s recommendation, and that the Commissioner repeated the same mistake. Referring to other High Courts’ view that heavy cash handling can justify a licence, he said that an objective consideration of the facts matters, not the licensing authority’s subjective satisfaction. The court quashed both orders and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application, taking into account the nature of his work and area of operation, within three months. It did not itself direct the grant of a licence.