MADURAI: The Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Wednesday ruled that all citizens were entitled to possess weapons for self-defence and that revenue and police officials should not deny them arms licence on the ground that possession of weapons by individuals may create law and order problems. Allowing a writ petition filed by S Rajkapur, an agriculturist from Theni whose request for licence to possess adouble-barrel gun was turned down by revenue and police officials, Justice D Hariparandhaman observed that arms licence could be denied only if there was a threat to public peace or public safety of much greater magnitude than the likely law and order problem.

Rajkapur contended that he was denied licence to possess the gun by the commissioner of revenue administration and the Theni district revenue officer in 2004 and 2005. The petitioner said he was residing in a farmhouse near the forest area in Theni and that he needed the gun to protect himself from wild animals and also for self-defence when he carried a lot of cash with him. Rajkapur, who also owns a cardamom estate at Sathurangaparai village in Udumbansolai taluk in Kerala, said his grandfather and father possessed gun licences during their lifetime and appealed that he now wanted to purchase a double-barrel gun from his uncle.

Justice D Hariparandhaman, who heard the petition, said unless the applicants' antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege, the authorities should give them the licence to possess guns for self-defence. Citing the Arms Act, 1959, the judge said the objective of the act was to minimize the rigours of the colonial Arms Act, 1878 which made it difficult for law abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defence whereas terrorists, dacoits and other antisocial or antinational elements were using deadly weapons like bombs, hand grenades, Bren guns, stern guns, rifles and revolvers. Pointing out that Section 13 (3)(a)(I) of the Arms Act specifically permits grant of licence to protect crops from wild animals, the judge said that if the family has been in possession of weapon for crop protection, the same should not be denied to the petitioner particularly when there is no criminal case against him.