In a strong stance against weapon ownership as a mark of status, the Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that carrying firearms is a statutory privilege, not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made these observations while dismissing a police officer’s plea to obtain a license for a second firearm, pointing out that weapon possession in India has increasingly become a “status symbol.”
“No citizen has a blanket right to carry a firearm as it is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court clarified, emphasizing that licenses are meant for genuine need, not personal preference.
The petitioner, who already owns a licensed 12-bore gun, argued that the larger firearm is inconvenient to carry and sought a license for a pistol instead. However, the Court dismissed this as an inadequate justification, stating: “This cannot be a ground to claim license for [a] second weapon that the first weapon i.e. 12 bore gun is big in size and Revolver/Pistol is small in size.”
Comparing Indian and U.S. gun laws, Justice Dhand highlighted how the right to bear arms in the U.S. is enshrined in the Constitution under the Second Amendment, aimed at allowing citizens to defend against tyrannical threats. “However, this law is also not absolute in the United States. It is also subject to scrutiny and reasonable restrictions,” the Court added, noting a stark contrast to India, where gun ownership is regulated and the licensing authority holds discretion over issuing permits.
“The object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapon is available to a citizen for self-defence but it does not mean that every individual should be given a license to possess [a] weapon,” the Court asserted. “We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves. 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.”
In light of these remarks, the High Court dismissed the officer’s plea for a second firearm, holding that he had failed to demonstrate any exceptional need for it.
