In a recent court hearing by Justice Pankaj Bhatia at the Allahabad High Court, the judiciary emphasized that success in the legal profession should not involve resorting to firearms. The court asserted that lawyers must not be allowed to carry weapons within the court premises, a stance prompted by a petition challenging the cancellation of a petitioner's arms license. Despite the petitioner's argument that the right to bear arms is essential for personal safety and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court examined key issues.

Firstly, it addressed whether the right to carry arms is a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasizing the discretionary nature of arms licenses as a privilege rather than an inherent right. The court referred to Arms Rules of 2016, highlighting strict restrictions on carrying firearms in designated zones.

Secondly, the court considered the permissibility of lawyers carrying arms in court premises. It distinguished between licenses for personal use and those for dealing or selling firearms, stating that the former is a personal privilege and not a fundamental right.

Thirdly, the court evaluated the impact of carrying arms on the cancellation of an arms license, citing the discretionary power of the licensing authority under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing the noble nature of the legal profession and the importance of skills over firearms. It clarified that no one, including lawyers, should carry arms within court premises. The court underscored the mandatory obligation of the licensing authority to revoke or suspend a license in the presence of a perceived threat to public peace or safety.

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's verdict reinforces the non-negotiable prohibition of carrying arms within court premises, asserting the importance of public peace, safety, and the credibility of the justice system. The court dismissed the petition, highlighting the discretionary and regulatory nature of arms licenses and the severe consequences for violating established rules.

Case: Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P.

WRIT – C No. – 2461 of 2023.