Delhi High Court: An appeal filed by Meet Malhotra (appellant) who is a designated Senior Advocate of the Court and who is a life member of the National Rifle Association of India, challenging the communication dated 31-08-2021 issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) which was based on the amendments made to Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) by way of the Arms (Amendment) Act 2019. It also raises a question regarding the interpretation of Section 3 of the Arms Act i.e., whether a member of the Rifle Club or Rifle Association, which is licensed and recognized by the Central Government, can, in addition to two firearms, possess a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice or not. A division bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., held that a member of the rifle club or association does not fall under the exempted category under Section 41 of Arms (Amendment) Act.
The appellant had three firearms, namely, one .22 bore target pistol, one .22 bore rifle and one .32 bore revolver duly endorsed on the license of the Appellant. Respondent 2 issued an e-mail to the appellant on 12-12-2020 directing him to deposit the firearm more than two with the jurisdiction of the Police Station or with an authorized Arms Dealer or to sell/transfer/gift it online through the Licensing Unit of the Delhi Police. This was due to the 2019 Amendment by which the number of firearms that could be acquired, possessed, or carried, at any time, by a person was reduced from three firearms to two firearms. Prior to the amendment, Section 3(2) of the Arms Act permitted a person to acquire, have in his possession, or carry, at any time, three firearms.
A writ petition was filed challenging the email which was thereby dismissed and thus, present appeal was filed. The issue under consideration is regarding the interpretation of Section 3 of the Arms Act i.e., whether a member of the Rifle Club or Rifle Association, which is licensed and recognized by the Central Government, can, in addition to two firearms, possess a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice or not.
The Court noted that on perusal of Section 2(1)(a), Section 3(3) and Section 13 of the Arms Act it is clear that a member of a rifle club or association who already possesses two firearms can hire or borrow a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle from a person or the rifle club or association or from the authority where the third firearm has been deposited for using it for the purpose of target practice or for competition and for that limited period of its use the possession of the third firearm becomes legal.
The Court further noted that Section 41 of the Arms Act deals with the power of the Government to grant exemption to categories of persons from the provisions of the Arms Act. A member of the rifle club or association does not fall under the exempted category under Section 41 of the Act. A special exemption for possessing a third firearm which includes a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle in addition to two firearms cannot be read into Section 3(3) of the Arms Act as it will become contrary to the object of the Government in reducing the number of firearms which can be held by a person.
The Court opined that the word “using” in Section 3(3) of Arms Act, has only been given its grammatical meaning and it means that a member of a rifle club or association, therefore, will have the liberty to borrow a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle from the rifle club or association or the authority where the weapon has been deposited and use the same for the purpose of target practice or for competition and return the same to the authority from where it was borrowed otherwise the word “use” would lose its significance.
Thus, the Court held that other than the limited period of using firearms for target practice or for participation in a competition, a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot possess a third firearm. Had such permission not been given, then the possession of a third firearm by a member of a rifle association or rifle club even for target practice would become illegal making such a person vulnerable to the rigours under the Act.
[Meet Malhotra v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2163, decided on 13-04-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Meet Malhotra, appellant – In person with Mr. Ravi S. S. Chauhan, Mr. Pallak Singh, Advocates for the Appellant;
Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Sr. Panel Counsel for the UoI;
Mr. Shadhan Farasat, ASC for the GNCTD;
Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate for the NRAI;
Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Ms. Charul Sarin, Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates for the DSRA.
