Noting an increase in the incidents of people carrying firearms to court causing concerns for public peace and safety, the Allahabad High Court issued an array of directions on Tuesday to regulate licencing and weapons on the premises.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order in a plea against cancellation of the arms licence of a young lawyer.
The single judge bench directed all district judges and judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh to register cases under the Arms Act against individuals, including litigants and lawyers, carrying arms on the court premises. They are also required to promptly request the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority to cancel the relevant arms licences.
The court ordered that District Judges, Judicial Officers, and District Court Security In Charge must take steps for registration of FIRs against those carrying arms on court premises and should swiftly forward such report to the licencing authority for immediate arms licence cancellation.
The court stressed that any person found carrying arms on the court premises including common areas, court rooms, lawyers’ chambers, bar associations, canteens and other public areas would be deemed constituting breach of “public peace” or “public safety” for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.
In this case, the petitioner, a young lawyer enrolled in 2018, had been charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC with section 30 of The Arms Act for carrying arms in the court. Consequently, the Licensing Authority cancelled the petitioner’s arms licence.
While doing so, the licencing authority also noticed the general directions given by the high court on January 2, 2020 in a PIL titled “In Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of UP”.
The petitioner, seeking relief before the high court, argued that “the right to keep arms is a right necessary for preservation of life, liberty and property”. Citing the inherent challenges of the profession compounded by the annoyance of litigating parties, he asserted that as a practicing advocate, his life was at risk.
While dismissing the petition, the high court underlined that in the recent past, several incidents of lawyers carrying and misusing the arms inside the court premises have attracted the attention of the courts, and it has been held that the arms licence is merely a “privilege” granted by the state and is “not a right of an individual”.
The court further said this “privilege” is subject to several restrictions enumerated under the Act, the Rules, 2016, and in particular Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil), which specifically bars any person who does not belong to the police force to carry arms in court.
Comments
0 comment