I would humbly request our learned friends to avoid giving personal opinions that have no basis in the common law or the enactment in question. For example five inch limitation, requirement of deactivation of antique or obsolete pattern weapons etc. under Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 are just myths or figment of imagination and have no basis in Arms Act 1959 and its Rules. Also the query is related with "arms other than firearms".
Arms other than firearms are regulated under Section 4 of Arms Act 1959 only and only if there is a Notification issued under Section 4 of Arms Act 1959. This must be understood. This can be understood by combined reading of Section 4 of Arms Act 1959 with Rules 18 & 19 of Arms Rules 1962. There are some States that have no Notification in force under Section 4 of Arms Act 1959. That is why it was suggested to file an RTI with Home Department of the State government or contact local advocate who may have the copies of latest Notifications. If no Notification is in force then there is no restriction or regulation of "arms other than firearms" under Arms Act 1959.
There is nothing under Arms Rules 1962 that is categorizing the weapons into A, B, C, and D categories. Instead they are Categorized as Category I, II, III, IV, V and VI in Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962. Licenses for Category I are rarely issued to private citizens. But if license issued by Central government, then they are perfectly legal. Sometimes law is nothing but playing with the words. Legally license is equal to permission and permission is equal to license. Hope the learned friends have got the clue to the trick done in the wordings of Section 7 of Arms Act 1959.
For those interested in understanding the matter related to Arms Act 1959 may read the following link https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Objections-against-proposed-arms-rules-2015-121734.asp
Since arms are a foundational fundamental human right under Articles 19(1)(b), 21, 25 and many more articles of the Constitution, that is why the Sikhs can wear or carry swords even in the Court rooms. To know more about this one can read the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment CWP 9013 of 2015 delivered on March 16, 2016.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9013 of 2015
Date of Decision: March 16, 2016
Dilawar Singh ...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: - Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate
Mr. Navrattan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surajpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Portion from the judgement -
The sword is considered synonymous with God, the Primal generative principle, the supreme power to sustain moral order and to annihilate negative forces. In this way the Guru conveyed to the Khalsa, as an individual as well as a corporate body, that they, as wielders of the sword, should cast themselves in the mould of God, with all these attributes. Unlike a dagger, which is associated with secret attack, the sword is associated with open combat, governed by certain ethical principles. Thus, the sword of the Khalsa is the assertion of this right to freedom. To quote Kapur Singh:
(The Sword) is by ancient tradition and association, a typical weapon of offence and defence, and hence a fundamental right to wear, of the free man and woman, a sovereign individual. All governments and rulers, whether ancient or modern, have and do insist to wear arms. Indeed in final analysis, a government or the state is sustained and supported by the organised might and exclusive right of possession of arms, a citizen's right to wear arms being conceded as only of a permissive and licensed character. It follows from this that the measure of freedom to possess and wear arms by an individual is the precise measure of his freedom and sovereignty. Since a member of the Khalsa brotherhood is pledged not to accept any alien restrictions on his/her civic freedom, he/ she is enjoined upon to insist on and struggle for his or her unrestricted right to wear and possess arms of offence and defence.
