The Karnataka High Court held that a legal heir seeking transfer of a firearm licence under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 cannot be compelled to prove any threat to life. The Court delivered this ruling in a matter where a pilot challenged the rejection of his application for an arms licence. The Court observed that “when Rule 25 applies, the transferee is not required to establish any threat to life.”
The petitioner, a Commander/Pilot by profession, sought an arms licence to receive a .32 calibre revolver from his father, who has held a valid firearm licence since the 1970s and is now above 70 years of age. Although the petitioner applied under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, the licensing authority rejected the application stating that he had not established any threat to his life. Even after an appellate authority set aside the rejection, an endorsement was again issued refusing the licence on the same ground. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the application was filed strictly under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, which facilitates transfer of a firearm from an elderly licensee to a nominated legal heir. It was contended that the rule does not require proof of threat to life, and the authority had misapplied considerations that were irrelevant to a Rule 25 transfer. The petitioner submitted that all statutory preconditions for transfer, age of the licensee and the long duration of holding the firearm, were fulfilled, and therefore the refusal was arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Rules.
The Court reproduced Rule 25 in full and analysed its structure. It noted that Clause (b) of Rule 25(1) permits a licensee who has either attained 70 years of age or held a firearm for 25 years to nominate any legal heir for transfer of the licence. In such cases, the licence is transferable during the lifetime of the licensee and only basic eligibility criteria and police verification under the proviso apply. The Court underscored,“The respondents could not have rejected the application on the ground that there is no threat to life established by the petitioner.”
It further held, “When an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is made, during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs for transfer of licence and there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life.”
The Bench emphasised that the petitioner’s father was 75 years old and had held the firearm for over five decades, thereby satisfying the dual statutory conditions. The authority’s insistence on proving life threat was held to be “contrary to Rule 25.”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement refusing the arms licence. A mandamus was issued directing the competent authority to process the petitioner’s application strictly under Rule 25(1)(b) and grant the licence within four weeks.
Picture Source :
