Ram Milan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
- A general trend to have a firearm license by an Advocate without any good reason is not appreciable and it is not in the interest of the noble profession
- It would be a very dangerous practice if an Advocate requires a firearm license for his personal and professional safety
- It was observed that there was no bar for the Advocate to apply for a firearm license and that their application can be considered in accordance with law under the Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w the Arms Rule, 2016.
- Advocate Ram Milan applied for a firearm license under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w the Arms Rule, 2016 for professional and personal safety claiming that some local people tried to murder and molest him and his family, which was rejected by the licensing authority.
- So, he moved the Court, which also rejected his plea stating that he didn’t have sufficient ground.
- The Standing Counsel for the respondent state submitted that there was no record of any crime or genuine need of the firearm.
- It was also contended that no license can be registered in the absence of reasonable ground.
- It was observed that the Court cannot interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the Licensing Authority.
- Additionally, the Court stated that owning a firearm license without justifiable reason is not appreciable for a noble profession like that of a lawyer.
- No documentary evidence to confirm that the petitioner was an advocate was found.
- The Court stated that there was no bar for the Advocate to apply for a firearm license and observed that their application can be considered in accordance with law under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w the Arms Rule, 2016.
- The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit.
- Do you agree with this decision?
- Should a standard basis of satisfaction be devised by the licensing authority?
Share your views in the comments section below.