Prayagraj (UP), April 3 The Allahabad High Court, in an order, has sought comprehensive data on arms licenses issued in Uttar Pradesh, taking note of a growing 'gun culture' in the state.
Passing the above order, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that individuals with political ambitions or questionable backgrounds are using licensed firearms to assert authority, cultivate a dominant image, and indirectly intimidate others, creating an atmosphere of fear.
The court specifically criticised the display of firearms on social media platforms, such as Instagram reels, noting that such behaviour seeks attention, social validation, and reinforces identity through the amplification of gun culture.
"Such misuse contributes to a culture of fear rather than adherence to the rule of law. It undermines public confidence in legal institutions and normalises violence within society," the court remarked in its order dated March 23.
"It reflects the persistence of feudal power structures, the inadequate enforcement of norms governing the public display of firearms and the influence of a media-driven peer-validation culture. The interplay of power, perception and social media further exacerbates the issue," the court added.
In light of these concerns, the court has directed the additional chief secretary (Home) to clarify whether the UP Government has established a database for arms licenses. The state must also specify if there is a formal arms policy in place to guide district magistrates in making informed decisions regarding the granting, refusal, or renewal of licenses.
Furthermore, the court sought details on whether Rule 16 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which mandates updating approved transactions on the NDAL system, is being complied with.
The court also took a stern view of the fact that multiple members of a single family, such as a husband, wife, son, daughter, and daughter-in-law, hold individual arms licences and sometimes possess multiple weapons and stressed that this practice requires serious judicial scrutiny.
Accordingly, the court directed all the district magistrates (DMs) in the state to provide district-wise and police station-wise details of firearms possessed by individuals. The authorities must explicitly indicate cases where family members hold separate licences.
Furthermore, the court ordered the preparation of a separate category of arms licence holders who have a criminal history of two or more cases. All superintendents of police, senior superintendents of police and commissioners of police across all 75 districts must furnish these details by way of a personal affidavit.
The court has also sought data on applications pending consideration before district magistrates and appeals pending before appellate authorities.
In a word of caution, the court also reminded the district magistrates and appellate authorities to exercise discretionary powers under the Arms Act, 1959, strictly within the confines of the procedure established by law.
"It is pertinent to note that unregulated discretion creates scope for corruption and misuse of authority. In a parliamentary democracy, unchecked discretionary power within institutions poses a threat to the rule of law and to the procedure established by law," the court emphasised.
These important observations and directions were made by the high court while dealing with a writ petition filed by Jai Shankar Alias Bairistar, a jeweller whose application for an arms licence was rejected by the district magistrate of Bhadohi after an unexplained delay of almost four years.
Despite a favourable police report submitted in September 2018, his application was dismissed in November 2022. A subsequent appeal was also rejected on November 20, 2025, by the additional commissioner of the Vindhyachal division in Mirzapur, without providing reasoned findings.
The court sought a counter-affidavit from the DM, specifically addressing the reasons for the inordinate delay and the legal or administrative impediments to compliance with Rule 13 of the Arms Rule, 2016. The matter will be heard next on April 28.