UNDERLINING the need to tackle the menace of unregulated access to firearms posing a serious threat to society, the Allahabad High Court has in the judgment of the case – Jai Shankar alias Bairistar v. State of UP and two others, delivered on March 23, 2026, pointed out that 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 present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed on November 20, 2025, by the Additional Commissioner, Mirzapur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of November 24, 2022, passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the application for grant of arms license was dismissed. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and has deep roots in the society. He is engaged in the business of selling gold ornaments, which exposes him to potential threats.

 

It is further submitted that the petitioner had applied for an arms license in 2018. The District Magistrate, Bhadohi had rejected the said application on November 24, 2022, without due consideration of relevant materials. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Mirzapur, without assigning reasoned or cogent findings, thereby rendering the impugned order non-speaking and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was further contended that the petitioner is facing persistent threats to his safety. As regards the criminal antecedents, it is submitted that out of the five cases shown against the petitioner, he is already acquitted in four cases and only one case is stated to be pending, which, by itself, cannot be a ground for rejection of the license. On the other hand, the Govt Counsel submitted that the petitioner has a criminal history of five cases, with acquittal recorded in two cases, in one case the final report has not been accepted by the competent court and two cases are still pending trial.

 

It was contended that the antecedents of the petitioners were duly considered by the competent authority, while rejecting the application. From perusal of record, it transpires that Rule 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016, suggests that licensing authority, after considering the application and on being satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled the eligibility conditions, shall grant or refuse to grant a license for permissible category of arms or ammunition specified in category III of Schedule 1, to any person by recording reasons in writing for grant or refusal, by passing a speaking order within 60 days of receipt of the police report. The HC has noted in the present case that the District Magistrate had rejected the application on November 24, 2022, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost 4 years. The appeal against the said order was filed after about 3 years, which was entertained and decided by the appellate authority on November 20, 2025.

 

The appellate order is however, conspicuously silent on the issue of limitation. Moreover, the appellate order does not reflect due consideration of the statutory mandate requiring reasons to be recorded. In view of this, the HC (the single Bench presided over by Justice Vinod Diwakar) has directed the District Magistrate, Bhadohi to file a counter-affidavit before the next date of hearing specifically addressing the reasons for the inordinate delay in deciding the petitioner’s application for grant of arms license and what was the legal and administrative impediment in not complying with the mandate of Rule 13 of the Arms Rule, 2016. The HC has directed the Commissioner (Appellate Authority under the Arms Act, 1959) to file a personal affidavit justifying the circumstances under which the appeal filed under a considerable delay was entertained without recording any finding on limitation or condonation of delay, and why the appeal was not decided in a time-bound manner. In the opinion of the HC, as this HC is burdened with a large number of petitions of this nature, it has become necessary to take a holistic perspective of the broader issues involved in the cases related to the Arms Act, 1959. The HC has noted that the social reality presents a different picture.

 

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, persons 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 arms on social media platforms, including reels is also used to seek attention, gain social validation, and reinforce identity through the amplification of gun culture. Misuse of firearm contributes to a culture of fear, rather than adherence to the rule of. 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 has been also noticed by the Court that in a significant number of cases, multiple members of a family-such as wife, husband, son, daughter and daughter-in-law – hold individual arms licenses, and in some instances, even possess more than one weapon(s) each. Such a practice requires serious judicial scrutiny.

 

Accordingly, all the District Magistrates have been directed to provide the district-wise and police station-wise details of firearms (along with their descriptions, rifle, pistol or revolver etc.) possessed by individuals. This information was also required that in how many cases, the family members hold separate arms licenses. In view of the HC, it is pertinent to note that that unregulated discretion creates scope for corruption and misuse of authority. In a parliamentary democracy, unchecked discretionary power within institutions poses a threat to the rule of law and to the procedure established by law. The HC has posted this writ petition for further consideration and orders on April 28, 2026.