He already owned a gun. The High Court still said no to a second one.

One Gun is Enough: Why the Rajasthan High Court Said No to a Second Firearm Licence

Brijesh Kumar Singh is a 51-year-old police department employee. He already owns a 12 bore gun, a gift from his father. He wanted a second licence—for a pistol or revolver—because his existing weapon was, in his words, too big and difficult to carry. The licensing authority in Jaipur said no. Twice. The appellate authority agreed. And on 13 November 2024, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dismissed his writ petition. The stakes were simple: could a man who already had one gun get a second one just because he found it inconvenient to carry?

The answer, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, was a firm no. And in doing so, the Court laid down a clear rule: the right to possess firearms in India is not a fundamental right. It is a statutory privilege. And if you already have one weapon, you need a very good reason to get another.

The Application That Kept Getting Rejected

Singh first applied for an additional licence to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing and Legal, Jaipur, on 6 December 2016. The authority rejected it. The ground: Singh already held a licence for a 12 bore gun, and he had shown no justification for a second weapon. He tried again on 27 February 2017. Same result. Same reasoning.

Singh then moved an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home. On 3 March 2019, that too was dismissed. The appellate authority held that there was no justification for a second licence when the petitioner already possessed one.

That left Singh with one option: a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court. He argued that the refusal was arbitrary and that he needed a smaller weapon for self-defence. The Court was not convinced.

What the Petitioner Argued

Singh's case rested on two main points. First, he claimed that his existing 12 bore gun was too large and cumbersome to carry around. A pistol or revolver, he argued, would be more practical for personal protection. Second, he pointed to a previous decision of the same High Court—Bheema Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/2016, decided on 21.08.2018)—where a second weapon licence had been granted. He argued that if one person could hold two weapons, so could he.

The State of Rajasthan, through its counsel, opposed the petition. It argued that the licensing authority had applied its mind under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and had rightly concluded that no genuine necessity existed for a second firearm. The appellate authority had independently affirmed that finding.

The Doctrine That Decided the Case

Justice Dhand began by examining the statutory scheme. The Arms Act, 1959, defines 'arms', 'firearms', 'prohibited ammunition', and 'prohibited arms' under Section 2. Section 3 requires a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms. Section 13 empowers the licensing authority to grant licences. But Section 14 is the key provision. It contains a non-obstante clause—it overrides Section 13—and uses the mandatory word "shall". It directs the authority to refuse a licence if the applicant falls within any of the specified categories. The Court held that this leaves no room for discretionary grant where the conditions for refusal are met.

But the real blow to Singh's case came from the Supreme Court. The High Court relied on Rajendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 12831/2022, decided on 13.02.2023). In that case, the Supreme Court had held, in no uncertain terms, that the Indian Constitution confers no fundamental right to bear firearms. Unlike the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides constitutional recognition to the right to bear arms, the Indian Constitution has no parallel provision. The regulation of firearms is entirely governed by statute—the Arms Act, 1959. The Supreme Court had further observed that the use of unlicensed firearms "sounds the death knell of rule of law."

Justice Dhand applied this principle directly. He held that the right to possess firearms is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a statutory privilege. The licensing authority retains discretion to grant or refuse licences based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Why the Petitioner's Precedent Didn't Help

Singh had cited Bheema Ram to argue that a person can possess two weapons simultaneously. The Court distinguished that case. In Bheema Ram, the second weapon licence had been granted considering the nature of the business carried out by the applicant. That was a specific factual finding. Singh, a police department employee, had not demonstrated any comparable necessity. His only justification was that his existing gun was too big. That, the Court held, was not enough.

The Witness Rule the Supreme Court Applied

Justice Dhand also made a broader observation—one that may influence future licensing decisions. He noted that possession of weapons nowadays is more for "showing off" as a "status symbol" rather than for self-defence, demonstrating that the holder is an influential person. He added: "We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves. Licence to hold an arm is to be granted where there is a necessity and not merely at the asking of an individual at his whims and fancies."

This is not strictly necessary for the decision—it is obiter—but it sets a clear normative tone. Licensing authorities across Rajasthan, and potentially beyond, can now cite this observation to reject applications that lack genuine self-defence justification.

What This Means for Practitioners

For advocates advising clients on firearms licence applications, this judgment is a sharp reminder. The days of treating a second weapon licence as a routine entitlement are over. The licensing authority has discretion, and that discretion is to be exercised strictly. An applicant must demonstrate genuine necessity—a serious threat to life or a specific professional requirement. Mere inconvenience, or the desire for a smaller weapon, will not suffice.

The Court also clarified the relationship between Sections 13 and 14. Section 14, with its non-obstante clause and mandatory "shall", overrides Section 13. Where the applicant falls within the specified categories, the authority must refuse. There is no room for discretionary grant.

THE PLAY: When applying for a firearms licence—especially a second one—lead with evidence of a genuine threat to life or a specific professional necessity. Do not rely on convenience or precedent alone. The licensing authority must be shown that the case falls outside the mandatory refusal categories of Section 14.

The Bottom Line

Brijesh Kumar Singh walked into the Rajasthan High Court asking for a second gun because his first one was too big. He walked out with his petition dismissed, a clear judicial statement that the right to bear arms in India is a privilege, not a right, and that one gun is enough unless you can prove you genuinely need another.