Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a legal heir seeking transfer of a firearm licence under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 need not demonstrate any threat to life when the request is made during the lifetime of the licence holder who has either surpassed seventy years of age or possessed the firearm for more than twenty-five years. The Court observed that in such circumstances the licensee is permitted to nominate a legal heir, and the licensing authority must assess the application only on statutory eligibility and the police verification. The Court set aside the communication declining the request and directed the authority to process the application and issue the licence within four weeks.

The petitioner approached the Court seeking to challenge an endorsement issued by the city police refusing his request for grant of an arms licence. The petitioner is engaged in aviation and sought a licence to receive and possess a .32 caliber revolver that is currently held by his father. The firearm has been licensed since 1971. The petitioner applied under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which permits transfer of a firearm to a legal heir when the licence holder has either attained seventy years of age or held the firearm for at least twenty-five years.

Also Read: Provident Fund Dues Supersede Secured Creditor’s Claims Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

Initially, the licensing authority declined the application on the ground that there was no threat to the petitioner’s life. The petitioner challenged that decision in an appeal before the competent authority, which set aside the rejection. Despite this, a further endorsement was issued reiterating the same ground and again declining to process the request.

The petitioner contended that the requirement of proving threat perception applies only to applications under other provisions of the Rules and not to transfers sought under Rule 25, which is based solely on the age of the licence holder or duration of possession. The respondents relied on the absence of any established threat perception, and a police report was obtained as part of the verification process. The matter then came before the Court for consideration of the legality of the refusal.

The Court recorded that the central issue for consideration was: “Whether in case of a transfer of the arm under clause (b) of Section 25(1) of the Arm Rules, 2016, there would be a requirement for the transferee of the arm or the applicant to establish threat to life?”

While analysing the provision, the Court reproduced Rule 25 in full and noted the distinction between sub-clause (a), which concerns transfers after the death of the licence-holder, and sub-clause (b), which concerns transfers during the lifetime of the licence-holder. The Court stated: “Clause (a) of Rule 25 (1)…would indicate that the licensing authority may grant a licence after the death of the licensee to his legal heir.” It then recorded that “Clause (b)…provides for in any other case, when the licensee on attaining the age of 70 years or on holding the firearm for 25 years… the licensing authority may grant the licence to any legal heir nominated by him.”

The Court noted the factual position that the petitioner’s father “is 75-year-old and he has been holding licence from 1971 that is for a period of almost 54 years.” It interpreted the proviso to Rule 25(1) and observed: “what is only required under the proviso is that the other conditions are satisfied and there are no adverse remarks in the police report as regards the legal heir.”

The Court further recorded that the petitioner did not hold any other licence and therefore fell within the limit prescribed by the second proviso to Rule 25. The Court stated: “the respondents could not have rejected the application on the ground that there is no threat to life established by the petitioner.”

Answering the point for determination, the Court held: “when an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is made, during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs… and there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life.”

The Court concluded that the endorsement dated 24.07.2025 was “contrary to Rule 25 of the Arms Rule, 2016.”

Also Read: Failure To Intimate Police About Road Accident By Hospital Not A Bar To Victim’s Compensation: Karnataka High Court Allows Appeals, Directs Fresh Reconsideration Of Claims

The Court stated: “Writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued. Endorsement bearing No.MGC/MAG2/ARMS/365/2020-MAG2-COMPOL-MGC dated 24-07-2025 at Annexure-H is quashed. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to process the application of the petitioner in terms of clause (b) of Rule 25(1) and issue a licence within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Leelesh Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. K.P. Uashodha, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:45555
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 30532 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj