The single-headed bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh said that if all criminal lawyers claimed the right to own arms licence, it could result in the issuance of arms licenses indiscriminately.

"Arms licence is a creation of the statute and the licensing authority is vested with the discretion whether to grant or not grant such a licence, depending upon the fact situation in each case. All lawyers/advocates who are appearing on the criminal side for the accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own an arms licence, inasmuch as this could result in the issuance of arms licenses indiscriminately," the Court observed.

Case Brief -

In the said matter, the Court was hearing a plea by advocate Shiv Kumar challenging an order of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi which rejected his application seeking a firearm license.

Appearing in person, he relied on two judgments, one of the Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar v. State and the other of the Gujarat High Court in Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher v. State of Gujarat, to argue that if none of the grounds under Section 14 (Refusal of licences) of the Arms Act is established, the arms license would have to be issued.

On the contrary, the respondents, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Yashpal Singh v. Licensing Authority, argued that there can be no right to have an arms license, which is in effect a privilege.

The Court in this matter, observed that the order passed by the licensing authority showed that proper and due consideration was given to various facts placed by the petitioner.

The Court noted that the licensing authority has to assess the threat perception and the reasons for the request for a licence which was been given by the concerned applicant.

In that background, it said that an application by an advocate merely based on the ground of appearance on behalf of accused persons would not be sufficient to grant an arms license.

Hence, the Court determined that the assailed order did not warrant interference and rejected the plea.