Karnataka High Court Overturns Arms Licence Rejection: Legal Heirs Not Required to Prove Life Threat

Court Rules Licensing Authorities Must Comply with Arms Rules, 2016, Eliminating Threat Requirement for Legal Heirs

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the rejection of an arms licence application by Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha, clarifying the application of Rule 25(1)(b) of the Arms Rules, 2016. Justice Suraj Govindaraj presided over the case, emphasizing that legal heirs nominated by licensees do not need to establish a threat to life to be granted a licence.

The petitioner, a professional pilot and son of a current arms licence holder, had sought the transfer of his father’s .32 caliber revolver. Despite fulfilling the conditions specified under Rule 25(1)(b)-his father being over 70 years old and having held the firearm for more than 25 years-his application was initially rejected on the grounds of failing to establish a life threat.

The court found the licensing authority's decision to be contrary to the Arms Rules, which do not mandate a threat to life for the transfer of arms licences to legal heirs. Justice Govindaraj stated that the rule clearly allows for the licence transfer without such a requirement, provided other eligibility conditions and police reports are satisfactory.

The judgment mandates the licensing authority to process Saldanha’s application in compliance with Rule 25(1)(b) and issue the arms licence within four weeks. This decision underscores the autonomy of legal heirs in inheriting arms licences under stipulated conditions, reinforcing a crucial aspect of the Arms Rules, 2016.

Bottom Line:

Arms Rules, 2016 - Transfer of arms licence to legal heirs under Rule 25(1)(b) does not require the transferee to establish threat to life.

Statutory provision(s): Arms Rules, 2016 Rule 25(1)(b)

Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811118