Gun Licence Renewal Is Statutory Privilege, Not a Right, Gauhati HC Rules in Hojai Petition

Three Hojai residents challenged the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to renew their gun licences; Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed the writ, holding that no person can claim renewal as a matter of right.

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by three residents of Hojai district, Assam, who challenged the inaction of the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai in not renewing their gun licences. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, sitting singly, held that the issuance or renewal of a gun licence is a statutory privilege under the Arms Act, 1959, and does not fall within the ambit of any fundamental right. The Court found that the licensing authority had applied its mind, identified concrete discrepancies in the petitioners' documents, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion that renewal was not warranted. With pleadings already exchanged and the matter pending since 2022, the Court took it up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

The Dispute Before the Court

The three petitioners — Md. Kapil Uddin Laskar, Md. Alauddin Borbhuyan, and Hussain Ahmed, all residents of villages falling under Police Station Murajhar in Hojai district — had been employed in private companies in Nagaland and other places outside Assam. Their employment, they submitted, required them to hold gun licences. The licences originally held by them had been issued by the Government of Nagaland. When those licences expired, the petitioners sought renewal from the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai. That renewal was not granted.

The petitioners argued that the Government of Nagaland had issued a No Objection Certificate for renewal, and that another State could consider renewal of a licence originally issued by a different State. They relied on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nawab Hussain v. State of Punjab & Ors., decided in CWP No. 3281/2025 on 6 November 2025, which had taken that view. Without renewal, the petitioners contended, they had been rendered jobless.

Document Discrepancies Raised by the State

The State Counsel, Shri S.R. Baruah, raised serious objections. He drew the Court's attention to two affidavits filed by respondent no. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai — one dated 30 June 2025 and another dated 1 June 2026. The later affidavit set out specific anomalies discovered upon examination of the documents submitted for renewal.

The discrepancies related to the dates of birth recorded in the licences against the dates on which the licences were originally issued. Licence No. 2269/MKG in the name of Md. Kapil Uddin Laskar was issued on 15 April 1985, yet the date of birth recorded in that licence is 1 February 1975 — making the licensee ten years old at issuance. Licence No. 1584/TSG in the name of Md. Alauddin Barbhuyan was issued on 6 May 1986, with the date of birth recorded as 28 July 1976, making him nine years old at issuance. Licence No. 12126/MON in the name of Hussain Ahmed was issued on 11 July 1994, with the date of birth recorded as 11 February 1975, placing him at nineteen years of age at issuance — below the statutory minimum of twenty-one years prescribed under Section 9(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The affidavit quoted Section 9(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which provides that no person who has not completed the age of twenty-one years shall acquire, have in possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition. The State submitted that these records indicated a doubtful scenario regarding compliance with the minimum age requirement at the time of original issuance.

The petitioners' counsel responded by filing a reply affidavit on 16 July 2026, clarifying that the licences issued by the State of Nagaland were originally in the names of other persons and were subsequently issued to the petitioners, and it was on that basis that renewal had been sought.

The Court's Reasoning on the Nature of a Gun Licence

Justice Medhi addressed the foundational question squarely: whether the renewal of a gun licence could be claimed as a right. The Court held that it cannot. The issuance or renewal of a gun licence does not fall within the ambit of fundamental rights and is merely a privilege. Even to succeed in obtaining a licence or renewal, the applicant would have to demonstrate a perceptible threat which the State has been unable to address despite being informed. Even then, the ultimate discretion vests with the State.

The Court drew a direct contrast with the constitutional position in the United States of America, where the Second Amendment recognises a right to possess arms. Indian law, the Court observed, confers no such right. A licence under the Arms Act, 1959 is only a statutory privilege. Under that Act, the Licensing Authority has a discretion to refuse if it is necessary for public peace or safety. The Court observed that a licence cannot be sought on whims, and that a justified necessity must be manifestly demonstrated.

The Court referred to what it described as a “catena of judicial pronouncements” holding that there cannot be any right to obtain a licence or possess arms under the Arms Act, 1959, and that necessity and justified need are essential prerequisites. It also referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 13 February 2023 in SLP No. 12831/2022 (Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh), which took note of the fact that the right to bear firearms is not a fundamental freedom and that no such right has been conferred under the Constitution of India.

The Court also observed that judicial pronouncements have taken note of the tendency to treat possession of arms as a status symbol. Grant of gun licences or renewal without considering the relevant factors would, the Court held, amount to a dangerous practice in a democratic country.

Why the Punjab and Haryana Precedent Did Not Help

The petitioners had placed particular reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Nawab Hussain v. State of Punjab & Ors. to argue that another State could consider renewal of a licence originally issued by a different State. Justice Medhi did not accept this as a basis for granting relief. The Court's reasoning was that the ultimate discretion to grant or refuse a licence must be exercised by the authorities in accordance with law, and in the present case that exercise appeared to have been done. The existence of a precedent supporting the possibility of cross-State renewal does not displace the authority's discretion or cure the substantive deficiencies identified in the renewal application.

Outcome

The Court held that no case for interference had been made out. Both affidavits filed by respondent no. 2 — the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai — stated adequate reasons, including doubts about the bona fides of the petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed.