List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Karnataka

Why in News?

Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2025) quashed the rejection of an arms license application and directed authorities to process the transfer under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016, clarifying that no proof of life threat is required when transferring a firearm to a legal heir. 

What was the Background of Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, a 41-year-old Commander/Pilot, applied for an arms license under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016. 
• His father, aged 75 years, owned a valid arms license for a .32 caliber revolver and had been holding the license since 1971 (approximately 54 years). 
• The father desired to transfer the revolver to the petitioner as his legal heir. 
• The application was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru on the ground that there was no life threat to the petitioner. 
• The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed and the rejection order was set aside. 
• Despite the appellate authority setting aside the rejection, the Commissioner of Police issued an endorsement dated 24.07.2025 refusing to grant the license, again citing the absence of established life threat. 
• The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned endorsement and a direction to grant the arms license. 
• The petitioner did not hold any other arms license at the time of application.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that when an application under Rule 25 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 license for more than 25 years, there is no requirement for the transferee to establish threat to life. 
• The rejection based solely on absence of life threat was found to be contrary to Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016. 
• The Court emphasized that the application was not for a fresh arms license based on self-protection grounds, but rather for transfer under the specific provisions of Rule 25. 
• The respondent authorities had misunderstood the legal framework by applying the life threat criterion, which is relevant for fresh license applications but not for transfers under Rule 25. 

Court's Directions: 

The Karnataka High Court: 

• Allowed the writ petition. 
• Issued a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 24.07.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru. 
• Issued a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police to:  
  • Process the petitioner's application in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 25(1) of the Arms Rules 2016 
  • Issue the license within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the court order.

What are the Arms Rules, 2016? 

Introduction: 

• The Arms Rules, 2016 were notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 44 of the Arms Act, 1959. 

The Arms Act, 1959 

• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Arms and Ammunition. 
  • The main objective of this Act is to regulate and restrict the circulation of arms and ammunition, which were illegal. 
  • This Act recognized the necessity for certain law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms for certain specific purposes including self-defence. 
  • It came into force on 1st October 1962. 
• These rules came into force on 14th July 2016, replacing the Arms Rules, 1962, which had governed firearms licensing for over five decades. 
• The Arms Rules 2016 were framed to streamline and modernize the licensing regime for acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms in India. 
• The rules provide detailed procedural guidelines for various aspects including license applications, renewals, transfers, record-keeping, and compliance requirements. 
• The 2016 Rules introduced several reforms aimed at: 
  • Simplifying procedures for law-abiding citizens seeking arms licenses. 
  • Digitization of licensing processes. 
  • Reducing discretion of licensing authorities through clearer guidelines. 
  • Strengthening security measures and background verification processes. 
  • Facilitating inheritance and transfer of firearms within families. 

Licenses under this Rule: 

The rules cover various categories of licenses including: 

• License for acquisition and possession of firearms. 
• License for carrying firearms. 
• License for sale and manufacture of arms and ammunition. 
• Special provisions for sportspersons, government officials, and others.

Rule 25 of Arms Rules 2016: 

Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016 deals with the grant of licenses to legal heirs and provides a mechanism for transfer of firearms within families. 

Provisions for Transfer: 

Sub-rule (1) - Two Scenarios: 

• (a) After death: The licensing authority may grant a license to the legal heir after the death of the licensee. 
• (b) During lifetime: In any other case, when the licensee attains 70 years of age or has been holding the firearm for 25 years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him. 

Conditions for Grant: 

The proviso to Sub-rule (1) states that notwithstanding Rule 12, the licensing authority may grant a license to the legal heir if: 

• The eligibility conditions under the Arms Act and Rules are fulfilled by the legal heir. 
• There are no adverse remarks in the police report regarding the legal heir. 

Multiple Legal Heirs: 

Sub-rule (2) provides the procedure when there are multiple legal heirs: 

• One legal heir nominated by all others may apply. 
• Must provide: (i) no-objection declaration from other heirs, (ii) indemnity bond with full license details, and (iii) death certificate of deceased licensee. 

Disposal of Arms: 

• Sub-rule (3) allows legal heirs to apply for limited period permission to sell the arms to a licensed dealer or entitled person if they decide not to retain the firearms. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai In RE: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and The President of India (2025) held that a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill without returning it to the State Legislature, as such power does not exist under Article 200 and would be contrary to constitutional principles of federalism. 

What was the Background of In RE: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (2025) Case? 

• The Presidential Reference was made to clarify the constitutional position regarding the powers of Governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by State Legislatures. 
• Issues arose regarding instances where Governors neither granted assent to bills nor returned them to the Legislature, effectively stalling legislation through inaction. 
• Questions emerged about whether Governors had a "simpliciter" power to withhold assent to bills without taking any further action. 
• The constitutional interpretation of Article 200 required clarity on whether "withholding assent" was an independent fourth option available to the Governor beyond the three explicitly mentioned options. 
• Concerns were raised about the impact of indefinite withholding on State Legislature powers and federal principles. 
• The Union Government contended that returning the bill to the Assembly was an additional fourth option available to the Governor, as this step was mentioned only in the first proviso to Article 200. 
• Questions also arose regarding whether judicially prescribed timelines could be fixed for Governors/President for giving assent to bills and whether a concept of "deemed assent" existed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Governor Has Only Three Options, Not Four: 

• The Court examined the structure of Article 200 and concluded that the Governor has only three constitutional options when a Bill is presented: to assent, to reserve it for the President, or to withhold assent by returning the Bill to the Legislature with comments. 
• The Bench rejected the Union Government's argument that returning the bill to the Assembly was a fourth option, preferring instead an interpretation that binds the first proviso to the main text of Article 200. 

No Simpliciter Power to Withhold Bills: 

• The Court expressly rejected the interpretation that treats "withholding assent" as an independent power allowing the Governor to let a Bill fall through without action. 
• The Court noted significant constitutional logic against a simpliciter power of withholding: "The first proviso disentitles the Governor from returning the Bill to the House in case it is a Money Bill. Therefore, in case of a Money Bill the Governor's option is limited to either assenting to the Bill or reserving it to the President. However, if the option to withhold a Bill simpliciter is read into the substantive part of Article 200, then, even a Money Bill can be withheld simpliciter, which reading, in our opinion, defies constitutional logic." 

Mandatory Dialogic Process: 

• Under the Court's interpretation, if the Governor chooses to withhold assent, he must return the Bill to the Legislature with comments for reconsideration. 
• Once the Legislature passes the Bill again, with or without amendments, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." 
• The first proviso to Article 200 mandates a dialogic process between the Governor and the Legislature, which is essential for maintaining the cooperative spirit of Indian federalism. 

Federalism Principles: 

• The Court stated: "It would be against the principle of federalism and a derogation of the powers of the State legislatures, to permit the Governor to withhold a Bill without following the dialogic process in the first proviso to Article 200." 
• The Court referred to precedents holding federalism as a basic structure of the Constitution. 

Dialogue Over Obstructionism: 

• The Court held that if two interpretations are possible, an interpretation that favors a dialogic process encouraging institutional comity and deliberation between constitutional institutions must be preferred. 
• The Court stressed that "dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism is the essence of constitutionalism that we practice in this Republic." 

No Timelines or Deemed Assent: 

• The bench held that Governors and President cannot be subjected to judicially prescribed timelines for their decisions on Bills under Articles 200/201. 
• The Court ruled that there is no concept of "deemed assent" of Bills as per the Constitution. 

What is Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 200 deals with the assent to bills passed by State Legislatures. 
• When a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has certain constitutional options to deal with it. 
• Article 200 is a crucial provision that defines the relationship between the Governor and the State Legislature in the legislative process. 
• The provision reflects the system of checks and balances in the constitutional framework while maintaining federal principles. 

Options Available to Governor Under Article 200: 

• Assent to the Bill: The Governor may declare that he assents to the Bill, making it an Act. 
• Withhold Assent: The Governor may withhold assent to the Bill, but this must be done by returning it to the Legislature with comments for reconsideration (except in case of Money Bills). 
• Reserve for President: The Governor may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President of India. 

Special Provision for Money Bills: 

• In case of a Money Bill, the Governor cannot return the Bill to the House for reconsideration. 
• For Money Bills, the Governor's option is limited to either assenting to the Bill or reserving it for the President. 

First Proviso - The Dialogic Process: 

• If the Governor withholds assent and returns the Bill with comments, the House(s) must reconsider the Bill. 
• The Legislature may pass the Bill again with or without amendments. 
• Once the Bill is passed again by the Legislature and presented to the Governor, "he shall not withhold assent therefrom." 
• This creates a mandatory dialogic process between the Governor and the Legislature. 

Constitutional Significance: 

• Article 200 exemplifies the cooperative spirit of Indian federalism. 
• It establishes a checks-and-balances model with emphasis on dialogue and reconciliation rather than obstructionism. 
• The provision ensures that State Legislatures retain their constitutional powers while providing the Governor a role in the legislative process. 
• The dialogic process prevents arbitrary exercise of power by either the Governor or the Legislature. 

Relationship with Article 201: 

• Article 201 deals with bills reserved for consideration of the President. 
• When the Governor reserves a bill for Presidential consideration, the President may either assent to the bill, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. 
• Together, Articles 200 and 201 form the constitutional framework for assent to State legislation.