Grant Of Gun License A Privilege But Its Renewal Is A Right Unless Grounds For Refusal Are Established: Madras High Court

“Thus, what was a privilege which could be granted or refused at the discretion of the authority at the time of issuance of the license metamorphoses into a right to be granted renewal unless the grounds under Section 14 [Arms Act] get attracted,” the court said.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that while the onus is on the applicant to make out a case for the grant of a license, onus will shift to the authorities at the time of renewal. The court added that the reason assigned by the authority for refusing to grant a license will be subjected to greater scrutiny, and it will be tested whether the authority has discharged the burden cast on it.

“A bare reading of Sections 13 to 15 makes it clear that while the burden will be on the applicant to make out a case for grant of license, the onus will shift to the authority when renewal is sought or refused. Thus, the licensing authority will have to show that the applicant's case attracts one of the grounds under Section 14. The reason assigned by the authority for rejecting renewal will be subjected to greater scrutiny as the test would be whether the Authority has discharged the burden cast on it,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by Magudapathi against the order of District Magistrate cum District Collector refusing to renew his gun license. Magudapathi was issued a gun license in 2021 and had renewed it once. However, the second renewal was denied, against which he had approached the High Court.

Justifying the refusal, the authority submitted that the petitioner was facing a criminal case which could endanger public safety, and he could apply for renewing the armed license after getting an acquittal. It was also submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, he should have approached the appellate authority, i.e, the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, within a period of 30 days. It was thus submitted that the petition was liable to be rejected since it was filed without exhausting the alternative remedy.

The court noted that the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer had recommended the case of the petitioner, but the Collector had rejected the request for renewal on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

The court noted that, unlike the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Indian Constitution does not confer the fundamental right to keep and bear arms on its people. The court noted that in the country, the grant and renewal of license was covered by the Arms Act 1959.

Looking into the provisions of the Act, the court noted that the application for grant of license and an application for renewing a license already granted do not stand on same footing. The court noted that non-renewal of an existing license is usually a more serious matter than refusal to grant a license.

The court added that while pending criminal case can be a ground to renew license, it would depend on the nature of accusation. In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner was being prosecuted for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC and was accused of causing a motor vehicle accident. The court noted that by no stretch of imagination, one could say that the offence could endanger the public safety. The court also noted that the petitioner was not accused of misusing the license issued to him.

The court thus found the reason for rejection was unsustainable and quashed the order. The court directed the authorities to renew the petitioner's gun license with appropriate conditions.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Lingadurai, Spl. Government Pleader, Mr.A.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

Case No: W.P (MD) No.23614 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment