While not leaving any scope of ambiguity of any kind, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Amandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others in Writ - C No. - 2461 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: -2023:AHC-LKO:83692 that was reserved on December 5, 2023 and then finally pronounced on December 19, 2023 has minced just no words absolutely to hold that succeeding in law profession does not require support of barrel of a gun and also made it crystal clear that lawyer cannot carry any arms in Court premises.

The Court has in this notable judgment has made it indubitably clear that lawyers and litigants cannot be permitted to carry arms inside the court premises as would be clearly a threat to public peace or public safety in the Court premises and adversely affect the administration of justice. It was also made clear by the Court that arms license of any person other than that of armed forces on duty in the Court premises found to carry arms inside the Court premises shall be cancelled.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Licensing Authority as well as the appellate order dated 07.11.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating the facts envisages in para 2 that:
The facts, in brief, in the present case are very interesting inasmuch as a young advocate - the petitioner - after enrolling in the noble profession in the year 2018 was charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC read with section 30 of The Arms Act for carrying arms in the Court premises.

In pursuance to the lodging of an FIR against the petitioner, a news item was also published that in the District Judgeship of Barabanki, various persons were carrying arms without there being any restraint whatsoever. The petitioner was subsequently served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the arms license of the petitioner may not be cancelled. The petitioner appears to have not filed a reply.

Although, the show-cause notice has not been filed alongwith the writ petition, the same annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by the State. As the petitioner neither filed any reply nor did he care to appear during the hearing, the Licensing Authority on the basis of the report submitted coupled with the fact that the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC read with Section 30 of the Arms Act, proceeded to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. While doing so, the Licensing Authority also noticed the general directions given by the High Court on 02.01.2020 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2436 of 2019 In Re Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of U.P.. The petitioner preferred an appeal; an affidavit was also filed in the said appeal, which is on record as Annexure - 3.

As we see, the Bench then points out in para 3 that:
In the said appeal, it was disclosed that the petitioner was a junior advocate enrolled vide Enrollment No.04435/2018 and was a Member of the District Bar Association. It was accepted that the petitioner was carrying the arms in the Court premises and the plea taken was that the petitioner was not aware that he could not carry the arms in the Court premises and thus, there was an error on his part and would not repeat the same in future. It was also stated that the petitioner had taken the arms license and only the petitioner was singled out for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of arms license, which according to the petitioner was an important issue to be considered.

On the face of it, the Bench then reveals in para 4 that:
The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed mainly on the ground of the petitioner facing criminal trial vide Case Crime No.644 of 2020 as well as the general directions issued by the High Court with regard to safety requirements in the District Courts.

As things stands, the Bench notes in para 5 that:
Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 18 that:
This Court also cannot ignore the fact that in the recent past, several incidents of the lawyers carrying and misusing the arms inside the Court premises have attracted the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other Courts from time to time. The Supreme Court in the case of Pradyuman Bisht versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628, noticing the manner on which incidents of misuse of arms had taken in Court premises and being deeply concerned with the same had issued certain directions.

As it turned out, the Bench stipulates in para 19 that:
To sum up the submissions and to decide the issues, it is important that this Court decides the following points of determination that arise in the present case:

1. Whether right to carry arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as pleaded by the petitioner ?
2. Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises is permissible by the lawyers who claim that law profession is typical and is challenging due to annoyance of parties to litigation ?
3. Whether the carrying of arms in the Court premises can lead to cancellation of the arms license in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 with the rules framed under the Arms Act ?

Briefly stated, the Bench in para 20 referred to the case decided by two Full Benches; the first being Kailash Nath and Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1995 ALL 291 and the same was followed in another Full Bench in the case of Rana Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. 1995 SCC OnLine All 979.

Quite rightly, the Bench then postulated in para 21 that:
In view of the two Full Bench decisions, referred above, the Issue No.I is answered holding that arms license is merely a privilege granted by the State and is not a Right and right to carry arms is certainly not a fundamental right much less a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 22 that:
Coming to the Issue No.II as framed and recorded above, whether, carrying of the arms in the Court premises is permissible by lawyers, the answer to the said issue is also clearly in negative inasmuch as it has been already held that the grant of arms license is not flowing out of any right but is a mere privilege which is subject to various restrictions enumerated under the Act, the Rules, 2016, and in particular Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil), which specifically bars any person who is not belonging to the police force to carry or have in his possession any arms in the ‘Court premises’.

In fact, the ‘Court Premises’ as explained in Explanation II of Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) gives an enhanced definition to the Court Premises and is not confined to Courtrooms, thus, carrying of the arms in the Court premises is not only barred for lawyers but is also barred for any member of the public unless he belongs to a police force, that too only if the police official is on duty.

Most sagaciously, the Bench observes in para 23 that:
The second limb of Issue No.II with regard to the claim of the petitioner that law profession is typical and challenging requiring the carrying of the arms needs to be repelled with all condemnation. It is a somber moment in the judicial chronicles when a lawyer, having practiced for a mere two years, harbors the misguided notion that wielding arms within the courtroom is essential for professional success.

This sentiment reflects a concerning departure from the principles of legal practice, undermining the integrity and decorum of the judicial process. Such beliefs run counter to the foundations of a fair and just legal system, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of values within the legal profession.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 24 that:
The said state of mind/impression of a young lawyer clearly needs to be deprecated as the same has no basis whatsoever. The young professional needs to be reminded that the legal profession is a noble profession and has continued to be so since ages; the worth of a lawyer flows from his pen, extreme hard work and his understanding of law and not from the barrel of a gun as is the impression carried by the young professional, the petitioner herein.

Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 25 that:
It is a common knowledge that ever since historical times never has a lawyer relied upon anything other than his sharp knowledge of law, hard work and the power that flows from his pen to make mark in the legal profession. The young professionals entering the Bar like the petitioner herein, needs serious counseling to get over such mistaken notion that he carries while entering the legal profession. This also highlights that the legal profession is being crowded by persons who are not undergoing any systematic training, which was earlier provided informally through chamber affiliations; this aspect is within the domain of Bar Council and the Bar Council is advised to redress this aspect through effective ways and means after discussion.

Most forthrightly, the Bench expounds in para 26 stating that:
Thus, the Issue No.II is decided by holding that no one including any litigant or a lawyer, can carry any arms in the Court premises and that succeeding in law profession certainly does not require support of the barrel of a gun.

It merits mentioning that the Bench specifies in para 27 that:
Coming to Issue No.III - this is one of the most important issues arising out of the present case. It has already been held that carrying of arms in the Court premises is specifically barred by virtue of Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil). In fact, this Court in its order dated 02.01.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2436 of 2019 had specifically emphasised and given directions for security in the Court premises; the Hon’ble Supreme Court also in its order in the case of Pradyuman Bisht (Supra) has also emphasised the security in the Court premises, which has a direct nexus with the administration of justice.

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 45 that:
Thus, the Issue No.III is answered by holding that carrying of arms in the Court premises can not only lead to cancellation of arms license, it is a natural corollary that the cancellation of arms license would necessarily follow against anyone including the lawyers except for member of the armed forces on duty who are found carrying arms in the Court premises.

Further, the Bench holds in para 46 that:
On all the three issues, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Far most significantly, the Bench then directs in para 47 which all lawyers of Uttar Pradesh must bear in mind always for their own safety to avoid landing most unnecessarily in deep trouble that:
However, considering the fact that carrying of the arms in the Court premises by litigants and other persons frequenting the Court premises is on the increase and is a cause for major threat to public peace and public safety coupled with the fact that the mandate of Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) places restrictions on carrying of arms in the Court premises and despite directions by this Court in PIL No.2436 of 2019 the same are not being followed in letter and spirit, I deem it appropriate to issue general directions to the following effect:

1. All the District Judges and all the Judicial Officers working in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh shall take steps for registration of the cases under The Arms Act against any person whether it is a litigant or a lawyer carrying arms within the Court premises and shall forward a request to the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority of the concerned area for taking immediate steps for cancellation of the arms license.
    
2. The District Judges and the Judicial Officers as well as the Security In-Charge of the District Courts are bound to take steps for registration of FIRs/complaints against the person carrying arms within the Court premises as defined under Explanation II to Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) and to forward such a report to the Licensing Authority for taking immediate steps for cancellation of the arms license.
    
3. The Licensing Authority under the Arms Act shall take steps for cancellation of the arms license in respect of a person found or alleged to be carrying arms.
    
4. Any person found carrying ‘Arms’ in the entire Court premises including common areas, Courtrooms, lawyers’ chambers, Bar Associations, Canteens, and other public areas within the entire Court premises would be deemed to be constituting a breach of ‘public peace’ or ‘public safety’ for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 48 that:
The Registrar General/Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to all concerned Judicial Officers in the State as well as to Secretary, Home, State of U.P. for compliance as well as to Bar Council of India and Bar Council of the State to for taking steps for sensitizing lawyers for not carrying Arms in the Court Premises.

In sum, we thus see that the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear that there will be zero tolerance for those who carry weapons in courts. It is made explicitly clear by the Court that to succeed in the noble profession of law, there can be no place for gun as law profession does not require the support of barrel of a gun and lawyers are thus clearly prohibited from carrying any arms in court premises. No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh