NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court asked all states and union territories to report on the number of crimes committed using unlicensed weapons and asked them to indicate how to remedy this menace that has “serious consequences” to a citizen’s right to life and the state’s duty to ensure administration of justice.
Dealing with a suo moto petition in a case from Uttar Pradesh, a bench of justces KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said: “The phenomenon of proliferation of unlicensed arms appears to be very common in several criminal cases. It has very serious consequences in terms of right to life and administration of justice.”
The court issued notice to all states and UTs seeking a response within three weeks to ascertain the extent of the problem faced across the country. The bench said the states should indicate the number of incidents involving use of unlicensed firearms and steps taken by the respective administrations and police establishments to deal with the menace.
The judges came across the issue while dealing with a bail petition by Rajendra Singh who was involved in murdering a man using an unlicensed gun. His bail plea was rejected by the Allahabad high court against which he approached the top court.
The court sought to go to the root of the matter and in February called for a response from the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police on crimes reported involving unlicensed arms. It noted that possessing firearms is a recognised right in the US Constitution but the founding fathers of our Constitution consciously chose not to provide such a right.
On Thursday, the Court wished to expand the scope of the petition further to ascertain the position in other states and to pass necessary directions to curb this menace. It asked the police chiefs of the states/UTs to provide the relevant statistics required by the Court.
The bench had in February appointed senior advocate S Nagamuthu to assist in the matter as amicus curiae along with advocate Anish Shah.
Nagamuthu suggested to the Court that response should be taken not from states alone but the Centre as well since the Arms Act is a central legislation. The Court issued notice to Union Ministry of Home Affairs and sought an affidavit indicating suggestions on strengthening the law to curb the menace of unlicensed weapons.
Although the bench was initially of the view that since the menace prevailed more in the northern belt of the country, responses may be called from states such as UP, Bihar, Punjab and others. But the amicus curiae suggested that even states where no incidents are reported could be a learning lesson as their inputs on keeping the problem under control could serve helpful for other states.
