The Supreme Court of India has expressed grave concerns regarding the inadequate enforcement of the Arms Act by various states, leading to the unchecked proliferation of unlicensed firearms. The Court pointed out the urgent need for stringent monitoring of illegal guns, such as firearms manufacture, possession, sale, and transportation, as outlined in the *Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh* case.
In response to the increasing prevalence of illegal arms, a Bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal ordered the formation of committees at both the Central and State levels. These committees will be tasked with curbing the rise of unlicensed arms and ensuring more effective implementation of the Arms Act and related rules.
The Court noted that despite a comprehensive legal framework, the enforcement has been ineffective, with illegal “factories” and “workshops” that produce unlicensed firearms continuing to operate across the country. Additionally, the smuggling of arms used in crimes has exacerbated the problem. The Court observed that there is a “lackadaisical” approach to addressing these issues.
To tackle the problem, the Bench directed the creation of a committee in each State and Union Territory consisting of the following members:
1. Chief Secretary – Chairperson
2. Home Secretary – Member
3. Director General/Inspector General of Police
4. Law Secretary
5. Ballistics Expert – Nominated by the Chief Secretary
The committees are expected to carry out a range of actions, including:
- Develop an action plan for the proper implementation of the Arms Act and its rules in each state or union territory.
- Conducting audits and inspections of licensed and unlicensed arms manufacturing factories and workshops through appropriate authorities.
- Collecting data on the manufacture, sale, and transportation of illegal arms and ammunition.
- Implementing measures to prevent the smuggling of illegal firearms and ammunition.
- Conduct studies on the role of illegal firearms in crimes against society and the state and recommend steps for prevention.
- Addressing any other issues the committees find relevant to their mandate.
These committees are required to submit their findings and reports within 10 weeks.
The Supreme Court’s suo motu action began earlier this year after the Court took note of the growing menace of unlicensed firearms in Uttar Pradesh. This concern was sparked by a case involving a 73-year-old man accused of murder using an unlicensed firearm. Following this, the Court directed the state government to file an affidavit detailing the number of cases involving illegal guns. It sought responses from all states, Union Territories, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Court had also appointed Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. This proactive approach signals the Court’s serious intent to curb the illegal firearms crisis, ensuring that necessary measures are taken to safeguard public safety and security across the country.
