Can it be argued that license is vested or implied?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
One of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 states that "weapons for SELF DEFENSE are available for ALL CITIZENS under license UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege"
Self defense is guaranteed under Article 21 and license is sought for self defence. If licensing authourity is causing unreasonable delay for grant of license to a law abiding citizen, can it be argued in High Court on grounds of above objective of Arms Act that arms license is deemed to be GRANTED/VESTED/ IMPLIED if licensing authourity is causing unreasonable delay as applicant cannot stay indefinitely under position of incapacity to fully implement his constitutionally guaranteed right.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 October 2010
At best you can ask the High Court to direct the Licensing Authorities to dispose of the application quickly, one cannot argue that in case the Authorities delay the granting of the licence, it is deemed to have been granted / vested / implied.
The constitutionally guaranteed right is not an absolute right, it is subject to regulations and one of the regulations is licensing.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 October 2010
Thank you for your reply Mr. Ramachandran. Can exemptions allowed by State from requirement of Section 3 & 4 of Arms Act 1959 under Section 41 for some people on basis of race, class etc. be construed as been derived from the concept of license been deemed to have been granted/ vested/ implied for ALL people UNLESS disqualified as stated by one of the objectives of arms act. Otherwise will it not be a violation of Article 14, 15(1) & 13(2) & 13(3)a of Constitution by the State? I am attaching a copy of notification issued by MHA under Section 41 of Arms Act 1959.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 10 October 2010
Dear Anonymous,
Please forget your concept of deemed to have been granted/vested/implied.
If it had been deemed to have been granted/vested/implied, the question of the Central Govt. issuing the notification would not at all arise.
I am not sure whether you have any legal background. But surely i can say that from your above postings that you have some ill-conceived notions about law, which are not at all correct. Without completely knowing the legality of a matter, you cannot jump to the conclusion as being discriminatory of violative of some Articles of the Constitution.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 October 2010
I appreciate your replies and thank you for your replies. Let me tell more, I am researching on this topic. In many states especially in rural areas where law and order is bad and police stations are many kilometers away, people are in miserable situation.
1)People & their families are unable to defend themselves, always in constant danger of being killed, kidnapped, raped etc. by criminal gangs having merry time, armed with all manner of illegal arms.
2)If people keep arms without license for their fundamental right of self defense, there is threat of prosecution by police.
3)If people apply for arms license, the licensing authorities keep sitting on files practically indefinitely due to various reasons.
As a result some of these people(it is almost thousands of people every year, if one searches the website of High Court) are approaching High Court individually to get directions/writ issued to licensing authorities to grant licenses within a 3-4 months etc. But this costs money, time, effort and because of this majority of the original applicants do not even reach High Courts. Justice M.Katju in CMWP No.4723 of 1993 (reported in AIR 1993 ALLAHABAD 291)was of view that right to carry non-prohibited firearms is treated to be embedded in right to life, hence RKBA a Fundamental Right under article 21 of the Constitution. But his judgment was overruled by a higher bench. But it is well established that Self Defense is part of Article 21(corollary to it we have Sections 96 to 106 IPC) and also there have been various judgments in support of right to self defense by the Apex court. The right to self defense becomes practically meaningless if the RKBA is practically denied by various means which cause hardships, delays, attrition by delay etc. etc. If I am not wrong, in my opinion Arms Act is also suffering from vice of over delegation. Moreover this relationship between the state & the citizen/s is not just only about that of licensor & licensee because he is seeking license for his fundamental right and obtaining arms license is his legal right UNLESS disqualified. Hence his fundamental right & legal right are also closely interrelated in this relationship of licensor & licensee. Because of this I feel the notification under Section 41 & even section 41 itself, is a violation of various articles of part III of Constitution.
I am looking for grounds on which I can file case in High Court so that I will be able to get order something similar to delivered by Justice M. Katju wherein RKBA is declared to be a part of Article 21.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Thanks you Mr. Ramachandran for your time and effort to answer. But I have not found the answer for what I am looking.
aman kumar
(Expert) 12 October 2010
to held arms is not come , right of self defense, its start when you are in danger or someone may be attack on you !if you have real danger than take help of police against your fear of attack.new order of suprem court last month is define that.and give reasons
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Mr Aman Kumar if you do not have any answer of the question asked, it is better not to answer the question. I am very much aware that all have right of private defence when faced in situations as mentioned by Sections 96 to 106 IPC(Apex Court has also given numerous judgments supporting it), which is nothing but a corollary to right of self defence under Article 21. But this right is practically useless if the victim is not allowed keep arms. ALSO the attacker/s is/are not going to wait and allow you to call police(assuming you have a phone and police listens and acts) and keep waiting till police arrives. Example terrorist attack of 26/11 of Mumbai etc. etc. etc. the list is endless.
Can you please tell me under what right, police is allowed to keep arms and for what purpose? From which part of Constitution this right of police is derived?
aman kumar
(Expert) 12 October 2010
ok my dear, can you think India a contrary where every one hold arms for the name of self defense , constitution cant be a book that have all law but you can read article 246 , schedule state list item police is describe as the matter of state , means state can make , use ,apply police act, not center pls dont go levethiyan society in this mhatma gandhi;S COUNTRY ,police work is well define for all
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Of course one can think UNLESS one wants to think that only criminals and police can hold arms for self defense. It is not question of "for the name of self defense" but is a question of fundamental as well as human rights.
1) Till 1878 Indians kept arms. Not caused any problems.
2) Till 15 August, 1947 in Rajputana States, people could keep arms, Arms Act not applicable. Not caused any problems.
3) Coorgs in Karnataka district can keep firearms even today without license, Arms Act provisons not applicable. Not causing any problems.
4) Sikhs can keep swords. Not causing any problems.
5) Gurkhas can keep Khukris. Not causing any problems.
Then how can it be thought that the rest of Indians will start behaving in a criminal manner sending the crime graph upwards? Are they any way less intelligent or less responsible than the above people? OR have less rights?
No Constitution "grants" any fundamental rights, it merely confirms & guarantees them. Indians have been enjoying the Right to Keep & Bear Arms from times immemorial till Arms Act 1878 was passed for only colonial reasons.
1) Apex court has held that many rights not mentioned in Part III also included in Part III.
2) Apex court has held that the citizens should be allowed to enjoy the rights under Part III to the fullest measure.
3) The Right to Self Defense is guaranteed under Article 21 of Part III to all persons including natural and juristic persons. How can citizens enjoy this right to the fullest measure unless allowed to keep arms? State or Police for Constitution/law is a "juristic" person. Hence right of police to keep arms comes from Right to Keep & Bear Arms for self defense under Article 21. But police is allowed to enjoy the very same right to the fullest measure under same article of Part III of Constitution. How can only citizens rights be violated, abridged or missing from the same Part III of Constitution?
Rights of State and all persons(natural and juristic) are listed in Part III of Constitution. Article 246, schedule state list is not "Rights" of State, it is under distribution of legislative powers between Centre & States. There is a difference between "rights" and "powers".
If anyone has any logical, reasonable answers based on our Constitution then please respond giving specific answers else please avoid giving answers based on emotions, fears, biases, prejudices etc.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 13 October 2010
Dear, you may follow the advice rendered by Mr.R.Ramachandran on your Q. further you don't comments on the experts if you are you satisfide with the advice open the Q for futher comments.
1) Apex court has held that many rights not mentioned in Part III also included in Part III.
A. F.Rs ensarine in Part III are not absolute as stated above.
2) Apex court has held that the citizens should be allowed to enjoy the rights under Part III to the fullest measure.
A.if you thinks that all should keept the Arms?
3) The Right to Self Defense is guaranteed under Article 21 of Part III to all persons including natural and juristic persons. How can citizens enjoy this right to the fullest measure unless allowed to keep arms? State or Police for Constitution/law is a "juristic" person. Hence right of police to keep arms comes from Right to Keep & Bear Arms for self defense under Article 21.
A.pl. read the ch-4 of IPC,s 99 also in this part.
Q.But police is allowed to enjoy the very same right to the fullest measure under same article of Part III of Constitution. How can only citizens rights be violated, abridged or missing from the same Part III of Constitution?
A.Police keep arms for the protection fo public not for injoing the ROP.
A.Rights of State and all persons(natural and juristic) are listed in Part III of Constitution. Article 246, schedule state list is not "Rights" of State, it is under distribution of legislative powers between Centre & States. There is a difference between "rights" and "powers".
If anyone has any logical, reasonable answers based on our Constitution then please respond giving specific answers else please avoid giving answers based on emotions, fears, biases, prejudices etc.
A. if u have a right have some duty also, this Act made in Public Policy.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 13 October 2010
1)F.Rs enshrine in Part III are not absolute as stated above.
They are not absolute in equal measure for both State & persons else Article 14 becomes a nullity. Self defense is also an inalienable right and a human right as well.
2)if you thinks that all should kept the Arms?
I have not put the query to clarify ABOUT what I think or anybody thinks. I have put the query to clarify what the unbiased, unprejudiced, logical, reasonable interpretation of Constitution says. In order to interpret Constitution, it is also necessary to understand the background of Constitution. The Indian National Congress in it's historic 1931 Resolution on Fundamental Rights passed at Karachi stated “This Congress is of opinion that to enable the masses to appreciate what Swaraj as conceived by the Congress will mean to them, it is desirable to state the position of the Congress in a manner easily understood by them...” “...The Congress, therefore, declares that any constitution...” PLEASE NOTE THESE WORDS - ANY CONSTITUTION, “...which may be agreed to on its behalf, should provide or enable the Swaraj Government to provide for the following...” and various fundamental rights are enumerated, among which was also this one-- “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with regulations and reservations made in that behalf.” Due to the circumstances under which India gained independence and the prevailing volatile conditions, it was decided not to mention separately the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right but to instead recognise it as a legal right of every citizen, but a citizen's right all the same. This can also be ascertained by reading the stated objectives of the Arms Act 1959. Following two of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 state: (ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for ALL CITIZENS under license UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege; and (iii) that firearms required for training purposes and ORDINARY CIVILIAN USE are made MORE EASILY available on permits;
HENCE IT IS NOT WHAT I SAY OR ANYBODY SAY. OBJECTIVES OF ARMS ACT 1959 ARE ALREADY SAYING IT VERY CLEARLY. IF SOMEONE USES UNBIASED, UNPREJUDICED, PROPER REASONING KEEPING IN MIND THE RULINGS OF APEX COURT, EVEN CONSTITUTION IS ALSO SAYING IT.
3)A.pl. read the ch-4 of IPC,s 99 also in this part.
Section 99 IPC "There is no right of private defence against an act WHICH DOES NOT REASONABLE CAUSE THE APPREHENSION OF DEATH OR OF GRIEVOUS HURT, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law." It is very clear that if it DOES REASONABLE CAUSE THE APPREHENSION OF DEATH OR OF GRIEVOUS HURT the right to self defense is very much applicable even in case against public servants.
4)Police keep arms for the protection for public not for injoing the ROP.
What is meant by "protection of public" as per law? It is also not about conducting false encounters, extortion, kidnappings, torture, rape, dacoities etc. and injuring ROP. It is about enforcing the law, which is derived from Constitution. Police can use firearms to enforce the law for the self defense only. When citizens use the firearms as per law for their self defense, they are doing nothing but enforcing the law just EXACTLY like police. Hence the role of firearms in hands of police and citizens is nothing except LAW ENFORCEMENT. HENCE BOTH CITIZENS AND POLICE ARE DOING LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN USING FIREARMS AS PER LAW. HENCE THEY ARE EQUAL BEFORE OUR LAW WHICH IS DERIVED FROM CONSTITUTION.
5)if u have a right have some duty also, this Act made in Public Policy.
I have made clear in point no. 4) above police are not doing any "duty" or "policy" with firearms. With firearms, police are only enforcing the law just exactly like citizens AND DOING NOTHING MORE.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 13 October 2010
Dear Anonymous,
I do not think your view point would get resolved in this FORUM.
The best way to find an answer to your query would be for you to possess the Arms which you are talking about.
In case any authorities question you and charge you under Arms Act, 1959, you have to VEHEMENTLY PUT FORTH ALL THE FINE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE.
Then the Court (currently last court Supreme Court) will finally give a decision - Perhaps you will agree then.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 13 October 2010
Mr. R. Ramachandran, though I have no doubts about you as a Ld. Expert but from your above reply, it does not appear a professional answer expected from a Ld. Expert. If one does not have a reasonable answer, where is the need to indulge in sarcasms? If you do not agree, please do not agree, but ateast give a reasonable, logical answer as to why you do not agree. At least tell where and why I am going wrong. I have never said that I stand for violation of law. All I am trying to ask is a reasonable, logical arguments which can be put forth before competent court of law and the statute be contested successfully.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 October 2010
Dear Anonymous,
I always consider myself as a student of law and never as Learned nor as an expert. I am in the area marked as "expert" by LCI not because i am an expert in law, but the area was named by LCI as "expert area". (Please therefore take away from your mind that I am any expert in Law).
It is said that "Appearances are in the beholders eyes". So, if my answer does not appear to you to be that of a professional answer, so be it.
You say that “If one does not have a reasonable answer, where is the need to indulge in sarcasms? If you do not agree, please do not agree, but at least give a reasonable, logical answer as to why you do not agree.”
In spite of reasonable, logical answers you are not amenable to reasoning. Let me explain why I am saying so:
You asked the first question:
“One of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 states that "weapons for SELF DEFENSE are available for ALL CITIZENS under license UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege" Self defense is guaranteed under Article 21 and license is sought for self defence. If licensing authority is causing unreasonable delay for grant of license to a law abiding citizen, can it be argued in High Court on grounds of above objective of Arms Act that arms license is deemed to be GRANTED/VESTED/ IMPLIED if licensing authority is causing unreasonable delay as applicant cannot stay indefinitely under position of incapacity to fully implement his constitutionally guaranteed right.”
It was squarely answered by me as under:
“At best you can ask the High Court to direct the Licensing Authorities to dispose of the application quickly, one cannot argue that in case the Authorities delay the granting of the licence, it is deemed to have been granted / vested / implied.
The constitutionally guaranteed right is not an absolute right, it is subject to regulations and one of the regulations is licensing.”
NOW LET ME ASK YOU – why do you think the above is not a reasonable and logical answer and based on the existing law?
You asked the following next question:
“Can exemptions allowed by State from requirement of Section 3 & 4 of Arms Act 1959 under Section 41 for some people on basis of race, class etc. be construed as been derived from the concept of license been deemed to have been granted/ vested/ implied for ALL people UNLESS disqualified as stated by one of the objectives of arms act. Otherwise will it not be a violation of Article 14, 15(1) & 13(2) & 13(3)a of Constitution by the State? I am attaching a copy of notification issued by MHA under Section 41 of Arms Act 1959.”
Against the above question was answered squarely as under:
“Please forget your concept of deemed to have been granted/vested/implied.
If it had been deemed to have been granted/vested/implied, the question of the Central Govt. issuing the notification would not at all arise.
I am not sure whether you have any legal background. But surely i can say that from your above postings that you have some ill-conceived notions about law, which are not at all correct. Without completely knowing the legality of a matter, you cannot jump to the conclusion as being discriminatory of violative of some Articles of the Constitution.”
AGAIN WHY DO YOU THINK THE ABOVE IS NOT A REASONABLE AND LOGICAL ANSWER?
But you persisted by saying:
“…The right to self defense becomes practically meaningless if the RKBA is practically denied by various means which cause hardships, delays, attrition by delay etc. etc. If I am not wrong, in my opinion Arms Act is also suffering from vice of over delegation. Moreover this relationship between the state & the citizen/s is not just only about that of licensor & licensee because he is seeking license for his fundamental right and obtaining arms license is his legal right UNLESS disqualified. Hence his fundamental right & legal right are also closely interrelated in this relationship of licensor & licensee. Because of this I feel the notification under Section 41 & even section 41 itself, is a violation of various articles of part III of Constitution.
I am looking for grounds on which I can file case in High Court so that I will be able to get order something similar to delivered by Justice M. Katju wherein RKBA is declared to be a part of Article 21.”
“Thanks you Mr. Ramachandran for your time and effort to answer. But I have not found the answer for what I am looking.”
SO WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS YOUR ANSWER, NOT ANY LOGICAL OR REASONABLE ANSWER.
Then you say:
Of course one can think UNLESS one wants to think that only criminals and police can hold arms for self defense. It is not question of "for the name of self defense" but is a question of fundamental as well as human rights.
1) Till 1878 Indians kept arms. Not caused any problems. –
It only means that there was some restriction / prohibition thereafter. If it is fundamental right what happened to that fundamental right? That means, when a new Order came, the fundamental right gave way.
2) Till 15 August, 1947 in Rajputana States, people could keep arms, Arms Act not applicable. Not caused any problems.
What happened to that freedom from 15.8.1947.
3) Coorgs in Karnataka district can keep firearms even today without license, Arms Act provisons not applicable. Not causing any problems.
4) Sikhs can keep swords. Not causing any problems.
5) Gurkhas can keep Khukris. Not causing any problems.
If you go to the extent of saying that even State and citizens are equal and if not Article 14 will become nullity; why only the above three can carry arms even now and not others? What happened to Article 14 then? That means are they not being restricted from possessing arms? What prevents them from doing so, is it not a law of the land? If that is the law of the land, then how can my answer to your query cannot be reasonable or logical.
But you are arguing that “Then how can it be thought that the rest of Indians will start behaving in a criminal manner sending the crime graph upwards? Are they any way less intelligent or less responsible than the above people? OR have less rights?
No Constitution "grants" any fundamental rights, it merely confirms & guarantees them. Indians have been enjoying the Right to Keep & Bear Arms from times immemorial till Arms Act 1878 was passed for only colonial reasons.”
Your statement is your wish, your desire, your demand – but not the provisions contained in the existing laws of the country. So while you have every right to have your wish, what I answered was reasonable and logical based on the existing laws of the land.
While you are questioning the reasonableness or otherwise of the existing law, I am answering you based on the existing law. There is a big difference between your approach and mine. This is the place where you are making a mistake – you try to place your views as the law of the land or what the law of the land ought to be. Whereas I am answering your query based on what the law as it exists today and not what it ought to be.
You say, “Right of police to keep arms comes from Right to Keep & Bear Arms for self defense under Article 21. “
WHERE FROM YOU GET THIS CONCLUSION. WHO SAID THAT THE POLIE KEEPS ARMS FOR ITS SELF DEFENCE?
You say, Rights of State and all persons (natural and juristic) are listed in Part III of Constitution.
WHERE FROM YOU GET THIS CONCLUSION. WHO SAID THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE IS LISTED IN PART-III OF THE CONSTITUTION?
POLIE KEEPS ARMS FOR ITS SELF DEFENCE?
You say that the State and persons (let me take it as citizens here) are equal otherwise Article 14 will become a nullity. Where from you are drawing this conclusion? Whether the State and citizen are equal? If so, why the State should rule the Citizens? Why should State put the erring citizens into prison and why not citizens put the State into prison? Why death sentence is given to a convicted citizen and not to a State? Why only the State has the power to do certain things and not the citizen. Why only the State is appointing Judges and not the Citizen? Why a Minister or other President is killed it is called Assasination and not when an ordinary citizen is killed it is only called as murder? Why when Minister dies State funeral is given and not so when an ordinary citizen dies? Why only the State decides whether to go with other country or not and not a individual citizen?
This is only to tell you how wrong are you to assume that State and citizen are equal - and how horrible your understanding of equality as far as Article 14 is concerned. Let me not deal with any other points for now.
So when your basic understanding is wrong, all the edifice that you try to build upon it will equally be wrong. That is where you are wrong.
As can be seen from the above, you asked questions for which logical answers were given. But you do not agree.
You go on persist with your logic - though that is not reflected in the existing law.
What you want is what law ought to be.
What we say is based on what law is.
This is exactly where you are going wrong.
You assume that it is people's fundamental right to possess arms. The Government of the day has thinks that it is not so and has come up with Arms Act.
If you have the ability to frame the law frame it according to your logic. If you do not have such power, at least challenge the law with your logic. Without doing any of this, going on repeating the same things and connecting certain unconnectable things and comparing uncomparables you are not taking things forward. You are definitely obssessed with your thinking - however illogical and not as per existing law of the country. That is why I said that the only way is to test by practical action. There is no sarcasm involved here. That is the only solution available - since you are not agreeable for any opinion given to you based on the existing law - and are not ready to agree that one cannot say licence is implied or vested.
Now you say, “All I am trying to ask is a reasonable, logical arguments which can be put forth before competent court of law and the statute be contested successfully.”
When our view matches with yours, then one can think of additional arguments in support of the thing.
But when our views based on existing laws are completely contrary to your views, where is the question of our suggesting any ground to argue your case. If at all such a ground had been there, we would have right at the beginning answered your query in a manner which might have satisfied you.
So long as I answer the query in accordance with the existing law - I feel I am giving a reasonable and logical answer.
Whereas, you have some illogical ideas in your mind, which is not according to the existing law, so you feel that whatever answer is being given by us are either unreasonable or without logic. IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION NEITHER YOU GAIN ANY KNOWLEDGE NOR WE. THAT IS WHY I SAID THAT WHEN YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH A REASONABLE AND LOGICAL VIEW BASED ON EXISTING LAW, YOU HAVE TO TEST THE VERACITY AND CORRECTNESS / SOUNDNESS OF YOUR THINKING AND VIEW POINTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN A PRACTICAL WAY, BY GETTING INTO A ARMS VIOLATION CASE.
I am writing this especially because you asked "At least tell where and why I am going wrong."
I hope I have mentioned where you are going wrong. I hope I made myself clear.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 21 October 2010
I said “All I am trying to ask is a reasonable, logical arguments which can be put forth before competent court of law and the statute be contested successfully.” simply because of your ILLEGAL advice to violate the law in order to seek remedy, inspite of the fact that the remedy is available under Article 32 and 226. Hence your justification that "That is the only solution available........" is not only totally baseless, illogical, unreasonable but clearly illegal. Your first 2 replies were satisfactory, but instead opened up more questions in my mind, hence my further queries. It does not mean that I have tried to belittle your replies in any way. And the more reasons why I find answers illogical and unreasonable:
Then I get an answer from another "Expert":
" to held arms is not come , right of self defense, its start when you are in danger or someone may be attack on you !if you have real danger than take help of police against your fear of attack.new order of suprem court last month is define that.and give reasons"
What does he mean by "to held arms is not come". The right to keep and bear arms has been enjoyed by our society since times immemorial. It began with stones, sticks, clubs, as the society progressed, stones etc. were replaced with spears, swords etc, then came the guns. The fundamental rights always remain, they never disappear or land in from somewhere. Only from 1878 onwards RKBA was restricted/regulated. So the right is very much there, hence there is no need for it to "come" from somewhere. Can anyone say that the fundamental Right to Information was not there under Part III or had not "come" under Part III of Constitution before RTI Act 2005 came into force? At the most one can say there was no codified legislation to help the people enjoy the right.
Then he says:
"if you have real danger than take help of police against your fear of attack" Does he mean to say people going to face danger should have premonition in order to have the right and the means to defend themselves else they have no right or means to defend themselves.
Then I get another answer from another "Expert":
"ok my dear, can you think India a contrary where every one hold arms for the name of self defense"
What does he mean about Indians and their country? Can't he understand the meaning of objectives of Arms Act? One of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 states that "weapons for SELF DEFENSE are available for ALL CITIZENS under license UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege" What does ALL CITIZENS and UNLESS mean?
Then I get another answer from another "Expert":
"A. F.Rs ensarine in Part III are not absolute as stated above."
Nowhere I have said the rights under Part III are "absolute" or want the rights to be absolute.
"A.if you thinks that all should keept the Arms?"
I repeat again can't he understand the meaning of Objectives of Arms Act?
"A.pl. read the ch-4 of IPC,s 99 also in this part."
It is very clear that if it DOES REASONABLE CAUSE THE APPREHENSION OF DEATH OR OF GRIEVOUS HURT the right to self defense is very much applicable even in case against public servants.
"A.Police keep arms for the protection fo public not for injoing the ROP."
What is meant by "protection of public" as per law? BOTH CITIZENS AND POLICE ARE DOING LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN USING FIREARMS AS PER LAW. HENCE THEY ARE EQUAL BEFORE OUR LAW WHICH IS DERIVED FROM CONSTITUTION.
"5)if u have a right have some duty also, this Act made in Public Policy."
Nowhere I am saying act not in public policy. Every legislation is done in public policy. Can police say to the court of law that they caused death with firearms as a matter of "duty" or "public policy"?The what is the reason police can say to the court of law?
Then I get illegal advice from Mr. Ramachandran to violate the law to seek a remedy even though there is a path to remedy using Article 32 & 226. AND still he expects his reply to be considered reasonable, logical and professional.
Then he asks:
"WHERE FROM YOU GET THIS CONCLUSION. WHO SAID THAT THE POLIE KEEPS ARMS FOR ITS SELF DEFENCE?"
My Answer:
If I create a succesful grievience in court of law, against police(or the law that allows police to keep and bear arms, use arms to cause death and grevious hurt) under part III of Constitution, then under which Article of Constitution are you going to defend that law? Can you please enlighten the forum, the law which is above part III of Constitution and gives rights to the police?
Then he asks:
"WHERE FROM YOU GET THIS CONCLUSION. WHO SAID THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE IS LISTED IN PART-III OF THE CONSTITUTION? "
My Answer:
If I create a succesful grievience in court of law, against the state under Part III of Constitution, then under which article of Constitution are you going to defend the state? Can you please enlighten the forum, the law which is above part III of Constitution and gives rights to the State?
Then you contend that the State and citizen are not equal by asking:
"why the State should rule the Citizens? Why should State put the erring citizens into prison and why not citizens put the State into prison? Why death sentence is given to a convicted citizen and not to a State? Why only the State has the power to do certain things and not the citizen. Why only the State is appointing Judges and not the Citizen? Why only the State decides whether to go with other country or not and not a individual citizen?"
My Answer:
Let us know the basics. Citizens have created the Constitution, and the State is the product of the Constitution. Citizens are ruling over themselves with help of Constitution and the State thus created. The state derives it authourity from law which is not above the constitution.
You also put forward following contentions:
"Why a Minister or other President is killed it is called Assasination and not when an ordinary citizen is killed it is only called as murder? Why when Minister dies State funeral is given and not so when an ordinary citizen dies?"
My Answer:
Minister or President is not deriving any authourity to be called "Assisinated" by virtue of being part of State under Constitution. It is just a part of English vocublarly which has developed in a feudal English society. In many languages there is no seperate word to call murder an assisnation. State funeral is not an act that is above Part III of Constitution, rather it is just a precedent/protocol/tradition followed.
I wold not like to go to a level where I make sweeping statements like "how horrible your understanding" etc. etc. etc. as the questions and answers in themselves are self evident to the readers.
I would like to repeat my question again and humbly request any "Expert" before answering the question to put himself/herself in the shoes of a lawyer who is fighting a case for his client and trying his best to win the case. He/she should take the question sportingly as an intellectual and professional challenge. If anything in my question is not clear or more information is needed please ask.
My question:
"I am looking for grounds on which I can file case in High Court so that I will be able to get a judgment something similar to delivered by Justice M. Katju wherein RKBA is declared to be a PART OF ARTICLE 21."
