The High Court wants to see a complete list of arms licenses because of a growing “gun culture” in the state. The court pointed out that weapons are being shown on social media and that many weapons licenses are held by members of the same family, suggesting that people are using these legal guns to appear powerful and scare others.
Court observations on growing gun culture
Justice Vinod Diwakar said that people who want to get into politics or who have a shady past are using their legally owned guns to make themselves seem important and to look dominant. He said this makes people afraid instead of respecting the law.
The judges criticized posts on things like Instagram reels where people show off their weapons, as these posts are about getting attention and approval from others, and at the same time, they are making violence seem normal. The court connected this trend to old-fashioned ideas of power and a society where people get approval from each other, boosted by the media.
Data sought from state authorities
The court has ordered the highest-ranking home official to say whether the government of Uttar Pradesh has one central place to keep track of all gun licenses and whether there is an official set of rules that district officials should follow when giving out, denying, or renewing them. This is to make sure licenses are handled the same way everywhere.
The judges asked for proof that Rule t6 of the Arms Rules from 2016 is being followed, which means all approved gun sales must be updated on the NDAL system. They also want a list from each district and police station of all the guns people have, and specifically want to know if multiple people in the same family each have their own licenses.
Special categories and affidavits requested
The court also said to create a separate list for people who have been accused of crimes two or more times. Police chiefs, higher-ranking police officials and police commissioners in all 75 districts must send in this information with a signed statement from themselves.
Officials must also provide the number of license applications that are waiting to be decided by district officials, and the number of appeals that are waiting to be heard by the people who handle appeals. The court stressed that if officials are too free to make their own decisions with the Arms Act of 1959, it’s easy for corruption and misuse to happen, and this damages the idea of a government that is responsible to the people.
Case that triggered the order
All of this came about because Jai Shankar Alias Bairistar, a jeweler, filed a petition with the court. He had applied for a gun license and the district official in Bhadohi had delayed it for almost four years. Even though the police said in September 2018 that he should get a license, it was turned down in November 2022 with no good reason given.
He appealed this decision in Mirzapur to the additional commissioner of the Vindhyachal division, and that was also turned down, and again the court record shows no explanation was given. The High Court has asked the district official to file a written response explaining the delays and any legal or administrative issues that got in the way of following Rule 13 of the Arms Rules of 2016. The case will be discussed again on April 28th.
Legal and policy implications for Uttar Pradesh
The court warned district officials and those who hear appeals to only use their power within the law. They said if officials can do whatever they want, it damages the rule of law and makes people lose faith in the organizations that give out gun licenses.
By asking for detailed information from each district and reports on whether the rules are being followed, the Allahabad High Court is trying to make the gun license process more transparent in Uttar Pradesh. The court’s orders could cause changes in how licenses are given out, how they’re tracked in the NDAL system, and how they are looked at when people show them off on social media or if many in one family have them, which are warning signs.
Additional procedural order in a related matter
In a separate order, a panel of two judges asked the highest-ranking home official to explain why the First Information Report (FIR) didn’t include the usual “Honble” before the name of a Union minister who was mentioned in the complaint. The court said the police should follow standard procedures and always use the correct titles, even if the person who first made the complaint didn’t.
The court wants the highest-ranking home official and the top police officer in Mathura to respond within 48 hours and said April 6th is the date for the next hearing. These specific instructions show how closely the courts are watching how the government works and how much importance they place on following legal procedures and keeping the public’s trust in the legal system.
