Taking note of what it called “amplification of gun culture”, the Allahabad High Court has raised questions over the display of licensed guns in public and social media platforms and directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to submit a detailed affidavit answering queries raised by the court, including if there was an “Arms policy” formulated by the UP government. The court also sought details from the district magistrates and police chiefs of all 75 districts about the individuals in possession of licensed firearms along with their criminal history/cases.
Raising a serious concern, a single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar while hearing a writ petition on March 23 observed, “In certain regions, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, firearm ownership is often perceived as a symbol of power, masculinity, or social influence. At times, individuals with political ambitions or questionable backgrounds use licensed weapons to project authority, cultivate a dominant image, and indirectly intimidate others, thereby fostering an atmosphere of fear. The display of firearms on social media platforms, including reels, is also used to seek attention, gain social validation, and reinforce identity through the amplification of gun culture.”
The bench was hearing the petition filed by one Jai Shankar alias Bairistar challenging the rejection of the application seeking firearm licence by the DM of Bhadohi district and the appeal by the Additional Commissioner of Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, in the year 2022 and 2025, respectively.
After hearing the submission by the counsel of the petitioner, the court observed… “This Court’s docket is burdened with a large number of petitions of this nature. Accordingly, parting with the facts of the present case, it has become necessary to take a holistic perspective on the broader issues involved in relation to cases arising under the Arms Act, 1959.”
The bench further observed that unregulated access to firearms poses a serious threat to society. The licensing regime ensures that only individuals who meet strict eligibility criteria, including background checks and a demonstrated need, are permitted to possess arms. Under the Act, licences are granted only for specific and justifiable purposes, primarily self-defence (especially in areas with perceived security risks), protection of property, and sport shooting. Thus, the grant of a license is intended to be need-based, lawful, and for legitimate purposes, observed the court.
However, the bench stated, the social reality presents a different picture.
“Instances have been observed where individuals of influence or dubious background brandish weapons in public, display firearms openly, or showcase them on social media to attract attention and project an image of strength or dominance. In certain cases, persons with criminal antecedents who enter public life or politics utilise licensed weapons to reinforce a “strongman” persona, thereby blurring the distinction between lawful possession and intimidation,” observed the bench.
Story continues below this ad
It added, “Such misuse contributes to a culture of fear rather than adherence to the rule of law. It undermines public confidence in legal institutions and normalizes violence within society. The issue is not merely legal but has significant sociological implications, affecting the psyche of the common citizen. It reflects the persistence of feudal power structures, the inadequate enforcement of norms governing the public display of firearms, and the influence of a media-driven peer-validation culture. The interplay of power, perception, and social media further exacerbates the issue.”
The bench also observed, “It has also come to the notice of this Court that in a significant number of cases, multiple members of a single family such as husband, wife, son, daughter, and daughter-in-law hold individual arms licences, and in some instances, even possess more than one weapon(s) each. Such a practice requires serious judicial scrutiny.”
Expressing serious concern on the matter, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to furnish, through affidavit, various details, including database of arms licence holders, if maintained. It also sought details on the legal and administrative impediments faced by the DMs under Ams Rules, 2016, and if any, why these impediments are not addressed.
The key query to be answered in the affidavit is whether any Arms policy has been formulated by the state government to guide DMs relating to grant, refusal, or renewal of licences, and if not, is it really required for a state like Uttar Pradesh to have a robust arms policy? The Additional Chief Secretary has also been directed to furnish all relevant government orders, notifications, circulars, or policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs or UP’s Home Department.
Story continues below this ad
All the DMs have been directed to provide information about how many cases (each case separately) where the family members hold separate arms licences. The court has also sought details of applications pending for grant, renewal, or transfer of arms licences along with their date of receipt.
The police chiefs of all the districts have been directed to submit details of arms licence holders with a criminal history of two or more cases through affidavits.
Listing the matter to be heard on April 28, the court directed the Bhadohi DM to file a counter affidavit before the next date of hearing addressing the reasons for the inordinate delay in deciding the petitioner’s application for grant of arms license.
