Today 10^th December is celeberated as human rights day .

Let us not forget that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in order of importance, the first human right. It is Indian people's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the other rights. All through our freedom struggle, our leaders were fighting for this human right and was promised to the nation to inclde this . Among freedom of speech, of the press, of the religion, of the assembly, of the equality, it is the first among the equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows all others to exist at all.

Throughout the freedom struggle our leaders protested against the Arms Act of 1878, demanding for every Indian citizen the right to keep and bear arms. For example in Nagpur around 1923 or 1924 there was a Satyagraha movement against the prevailing Arms Act. This movement attracted Satyagrahis from all over India, it went on for six months and the Indian National Congress put its seal of approval on this Satyagraha movement against the Arms Act. In fact even the Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, protested for the right of every Indian citizen to keep and bear arms, going so far as to state that, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest”.

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.”

Hon'ble Justice Markande Katju in his judgment(https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1434833/) contended that RKBA is embedded under Article 21, he ignored at least two very important points to support his contention, which lead to its subsequent overrule by a bigger bench of Allahabad Hight Court, contending that RKBA does not exist under Article 21.

Before I go further, I would like to explain that in the layman's language, natural rights and human rights are "God" given rights. Human Rights are those natural rights which are given to us by nature because we are humans, these are the rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law. For example: The Right to Self Defense, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not "granted" by any government document or society. Humans had these rights which were fundamental to them, in order to safe guard their life even before any governments or societies were formed. Hence Self Defense and RKBA are human as well as fundamental rights. Only the modes and the means of enjoying these rights changed with progress of society. It started with stones, wooden clubs and sticks, then to spears, bows and arrows, then to firearms. These rights are pre existing, Constitutions merely "guarantee" these fundamental rights from violation by the State.

In my interpretation below, I am going by the assumption that provisions of the Constitution are mutually consistent. There are no internal logical contradictions. Also I am going by the assumption that powers are narrow, rights are broad. Delegated powers are to be interpreted as strictly as possible, consistent with the words, and rights as broadly as possible, with the presumption in favor of the right, and the burden of proof on those claiming a power. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power. Apex court has also given the opinion that citizens should be able to enjoy the rights conferred under part III to the fullest measure.

Constitution is not granting any fundamental rights to its citizens, it is merely guaranteeing already existing fundamental rights which are most likely to be violated by the state. Constitution is interpreted as a harmonious, contiguous and logical whole, we cannot pick and choose the meaning of sub clauses differently within the same clause as per our convenience. Sub Clauses under Articles 19(1) are talking of rights of citizens and Clauses 19(2) to 19(6) are talking about powers of the state to create reasonable restrictions on the respective rights.

Wherever in the Article 19(1) Constitution is talking of two fundamental rights, it is joining them with the word "and" or excluding one from the other with the word "or".

I am illustrating with help copy of Article 19(1) below:

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression; (It is referring to the Right to Freedom of Speech and The Right to Freedom of Expression)
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (It is referring to the Right to Assemble Peaceably and without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)
(c) to form associations or unions; (It is referring to the Right to form Associations or the Right to form Unions)
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; 1[and] (It is referring to the Right to Reside in any part of the territory of India and the Right to settle in any part of the territory of India)
2* * * * *
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. (It is referring to the Right to practise any Profession or the Right to carry any occupation, trade or the Right to business)

Point 1:

Article 19(1)(b) states "All citizens shall have the right— (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;"

I am interpreting the Article 19(1)b "to assemble peaceably AND without arms;" in its entirety in context to Part III. If we read Article 19(1)b carefully it becomes clear that it is talking of at least 2 rights, namely the Right to Assemble Peaceably AND the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is providing a guarantee to the citizens on the Right to Assemble Peaceably with a condition that the said guarantee from the infringement by state on the Right to Assemble Peaceably is without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It means the burden to justify the Right to Assemble Peaceably with arms would lie on the citizen. An example of such rights is The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918. Under this act, in order to do patrolling, citizens exercise 2 fundamental rights, right to assemble(peaceably as well as violently if situation compels) and the right to arms. If challenged by violent unlawful elements, the peaceful assembly with arms may transform into a violent assembly in order to safeguard their right to life. If the force of unlawful elements is greater than citizens, then the armed assembly of citizens may dissemble violently to safeguard their right to life. And such an assembly may also dissemble with arms peaceably if they are successful in overcoming the force of unlawful elements. But for exercise of such rights the Constitution is not taking the burden on itself to justify such rights on behalf of the citizens, neither is the Constitution getting offended. Instead the state is taking this burden to justify such rights of citizens, on itself on behalf of citizens under The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918.

Hence it is clear from above paragraph that the Article 19(1)b is not extinguishing any fundamental rights or preventing citizens from exercising any fundamental right(either guaranteed or not guaranteed). It is only conveying the meaning and condition of the guarantee provided by it, to its citizens, that the right to assemble peaceably is guaranteed by Constitution only if exercised without the right to keep and bear arms. This was done due to the kind of volatile conditions under which India gained independence. If Article 19(1)b would have been referring to only one right namely the right to assemble peaceably and not acknowledging the presence of another right RKBA under Article 21 then "and" in Article 19(1)b is unnecessary. "to assemble peaceably without arms;" would have been adequate to convey the intended meaning. The addition of words "and" and also "without arms" do not serve any help to the state for the purpose of restricting or regulating the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)b, since it is only the Article 19(3) that is helping the state for imposing restrictions or regulations. If RKBA did not exist under Article 21, in that case in the absence of words "and" and "without arms" or even or even in absence of words "and without arms" the state would have been well within its rights to change the terms and conditions of arms licenses by a notification, from the strength derived from Article 19(3), thus completely prohibiting the taking of licensed arms to any assemblage without offending the Constitution. Hence it becomes clear that the words "and" and "without arms" are quite unnecessary in case RKBA does not exist under Part III of our Constitution BUT are very much necessary if RKBA exists under Article 21.

To further explain my contention I would like to draw the attention to the draft Constitution of Constituent Assembly where the citizen's right to keep and bear arms was explicitly enumerated in a separate article. Because of this Article 19(1)b reads "to assemble peaceably and without arms;" The removal of explicit enumeration of the right RKBA from Constitution does not either change the meaning of Article 19(1)b nor does it extinguish RKBA from another Article 21 under Part III.

The point that becomes abundantly clear from the above discussion is that under no circumstances does it become necessary for the Constitution to impose restrictions within a fundamental right being guaranteed under Article 19(1)b, unless such a restriction being imposed on the Article 19(1)b, itself is also a guaranteed fundamental right under Part III, because of the fact that there is already a separate provision in the form of Article 19(3) to impose restrictions on those rights which do not constitute a guarantee on the fundamental rights within the scope and meaning of Article 19(1)b, and also on those rights which do not constitute a guarantee on the fundamental rights within the scope and meaning of rights guaranteed under part Part III of the Constitution.

Therefore if we read and understand the above discussion in its entirety and completeness, it becomes abundantly clear from above reading that the need for placing a condition within a fundamental right being guaranteed, i.e. the excluding of one right, while guaranteeing another right in Article 19(1)b becomes unnecessary if the right being excluded does not exist as a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III!

Point 2:

Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

a) Constitution has certainly prohibited things which it wanted to e.g. untouchability, titles etc., but at the same time it has not explicitly enumerated every right acknowledged under Part III. Examples: Right to Privacy, Right to Information, Right to Self Defense etc. There are many rights under Part III which were not known to society even though they existed under Part III, but the awareness emerged in due course of time. The apex court is also of opinion that many unenumerated rights also exist under part III.

b) We have Sections 96 to 106 IPC for Right of Private Defense which is a corollary to Right of Self Defense under Article 21. Besides RKBA being a fundamental right, it is also a Natural and a Human Right as well. Can the Constitution say that Right to Self Defense exists under Article 21 but the right to the means of self defense do not exist and it has to be done with bare hands? No the Constitution cannot say that, thus the Right to Keep and Bear Arms exists under Article 21 and its existence also gets confirmation by the explicit exclusion of it from being used in conjunction with the Right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)b. The law enforcement machinery of State is keeping arms under RKBA under Article 21 for self defense. If I create a successful grievance in a court of law, against the police(or the law that allows the police to keep and bear arms, use the arms thus kept and borne to cause death and grievous hurt) under part III of Constitution, then under which Article of Constitution are you going to defend that law and the rights? Nothing but Article 21. When citizens are keeping and using arms for self defense, they are also acting as a law enforcement machinery in individual capacity by enforcing Sections 96 to 106 IPC if situation arises. Hence it cannot be said that the rights of citizens under the same Constitution are unequal or different from those of State for enforcing the laws created for the same Constitutional rights.

c) The presence of RKBA under Article 21 in Part III of Constitution, besides getting confirmed by Article 19(1)b and Article 21 as discussed in Point 1 and Point 2 above, gets further confirmation from the views expressed in Constituent Assembly debates and the objectives of Arms Act 1959 and its provisions. Arms Act 1959 is a regulatory law, in the layman's language, it a criminal law without any victim. If the state passes a law to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution, it cannot put the burden on the citizen to justify the exercise of that right, for the simple reason that Constitution has already taken that burden for him by providing a guarantee. Hence the burden lies on the state to justify placing of regulation/restriction on the fundamental right of the citizen.

Since RKBA is a right guaranteed under Constitution, one of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 puts the burden not on the citizen, but on the state. The objective states that "weapons for SELF DEFENSE are available for ALL CITIZENS under licenses UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege". The "privilege" referred in this objective is referring to the fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution to ALL CITIZENS. Hence this objective cannot mean that it is putting a burden on ALL CITIZENS to provide a valid "reason" in order to have a license. Instead it means by the use of word UNLESS, that the state has been put under a burden to provide a valid "reason" for denying a license, so that the citizen can approach High Court to get his fundamental right enforced. This can be further ascertained from reading relevant Sections and clauses in Arms Act 1959, I am quoting the concerned clauses:
CHAPTER III - PROVISIONS RELATING TO LICENCES
13. Grant of licences
1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.

1*[(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same.

(3) The licensing authority shall grant---

(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required---

(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection:

What does word SHALL in the sentence "The licensing authority shall grant---" mean? It means a direction to issue a license provided the applicant is not ineligible for license as per Section 14. It also means that the burden is not on the applicant to provide "reason" to get a license since it has been already taken on his behalf by the Constitution.

14. Refusal of licences

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

What does 14(2) mean? It means that if the applicant is not offending anything in Section 14 then only because he does not have sufficient property cannot become a reason to deny arms license.(Please note: this Section 14(2) was enacted so that the fundamental Right to Property guaranteed our Constitution at the time of enactment of Arms Act 1959 would not be offended. Since denying firearm only on the ground of lack of sufficient property would mean the applicant is being denied to acquire property(firearm is also a property))

What does 14(3) mean? It means since it is the question of applicant's fundamental right, the burden to provide "reason" to refuse license lies on the State, so that in case the fundamental right to RKBA guaranteed by our Constitution of the applicant is infringed, the applicant can approach High Court with evidence to get his right enforced which has been guaranteed by our Constitution.(Just as Section 14(2) was enacted to protect the fundamental right to property guaranteed by our Constitution, similarly Section 14(3) was enacted to protect the fundamental right to RKBA under Article 21 of our Constitution)

d) Since RKBA is guaranteed under Article 21 as a fundamental and a human right by our Constitution, nowhere in the Arms Act 1959, there is any prohibition placed for the issue of arms license to any non citizen in India. This can be further ascertained by the reading of Arms Rules 1962 Section 17 Traveller's (temporary) license and Section 32 Bringing of Arms and Ammunition into India by bona fide tourists. They read as under:

17. Traveler’s (temporary) license

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 8, a license in Form VIII may be granted to any bona fide traveler, proceeding from the place of his arrival of arms or ammunition for the duration of the journey, by the licensing authority at the place of arrival.

32. Bringing of Arms and Ammunition into India by bona fide tourists,-

(1) A license, for a period valid of six months from the date of endorsement referred to in sub-rule (I-A), may be granted in Form III to bona fide tourists referred to in clause (b) of the provisio to sub-section (I) of section 10, so far as practicable, six months prior to the expected date of arrival of the tourist in India;

Hence from reading of all the above points, it becomes abundantly clear that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 21, since it is a natural right, a human right and also a fundamental right.

I would like to end this discussion by drawing the attention to a quote from Gita, which also talks about the human right of RKBA of people, which translated into English would mean:

"The State that protects the nation and its people with arms, only there the people can talk about arms"

And the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights(on which the basic structure and doctrine of the Part III of our Constitution is based) says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The basic structure and doctrine conveyed by both the quote from the Gita and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is essentially the same, which is also reflected in the Part III of our Constitution, which explained by me in this document becomes clear, if it is read in its entirety and in its completeness.

If the Constitution is properly understood, then there is not much room left for any confusion. Also the link for the debate related to the topic of RKBA in Constituent Assembly is available at https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1625&start=0

We think , the object can be achieved by equal distribution of money .

Certainly the perpetuators of Bofors Scam, 2G Scam, CWG Scam, Rice Scam and countless other Scams, perpetuators of all these Scams did Scams because they were very poor and wanted "equal distribution" of money among themselves. If money is distributed equally to them before the occurance of Scams, then Scams will stop! God Bless this brilliant idea!!!

Corruption and disparity are interdependent.

Therefore first thing to be done is to eradicate corruption and disparity.

Certainly the perpetuators of Bofors Scam, 2G Scam, CWG Scam, Rice Scam and countless other Scams, perpetuators of all these Scams did Scams because there was great disparity of wealth among themselves. If wealth is distributed equally to them before the occurance of Scams, then Scams will stop! God Bless this brilliant idea!!!

Tripathiji, no personal offence is intended. My only purpose is to express my opinion, that the propositions put by you do not seem sound and reasonable to me.

Thanks for this thread.

If we can not eradicate the disparity and corruption, then at least control it to the satisfactory level as this is killing our civilization and culture (of the society and Nation).

Plz. Just have a look at the news article below, what sort of reputation and Image we have earned due to these corrupt third grade persons,

India ninth-most corrupt country: Survey

10 Dec, 2010, 01.46AM IST,

ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: About 54% Indians paid a bribe in the past year, according to a global survey by Transparency International (TI), which pegs the extent of corruption in India at levels comparable with Cambodia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Senegal, Uganda and Liberia. <br> <br> TI’s Global Corruption Barometer survey, released on global anti-corruption day, measures public perception on corruption across the world. One metric asks respondents if they had paid a bribe during the past 12 months to providers of any one of the nine services such as education, judiciary, medical services, police, registry and permit services, utilities, tax revenue and customs.  By this metric, India is the ninth most corrupt country in the world, in a ranking of 86 countries, with 54% of people reporting having paid a bribe. War-torn Iraq (56%) and Afghanistan (61%) suffer worse levels than India, as do nations such as Liberia (89%), Uganda (86%), Nigeria (63%), Sierra Leone (71%), Senegal (56%) and Cambodia (84%). <br> <br> The world average is 25%, while the Asia Pacific average is 11%. The European Union enjoys an average of 5%, as does North America (Canada is marginally less corrupt than the United States), while Latin America and North Africa reported an average of 36%. Sub Saharan Africa has an average of 56%, compared with India’s 54%. <br> <br> The perception of pervasive corruption matches the story painted by the media, which reported high-profile scams, including the Commonwealth Games organising and the 2G-spectrum allocation. The survey confirms that petty corruption is also endemic in India. <br> <br> Indians perceived political parties to be the most corrupt, ranking them 4.2 on a scale of one to five. Political parties are followed by Police (4.1), Parliament/legislature (4) and civil servants (3.5). Private sector, NGOs and judiciary are all seen to be similarly corrupt (3.1), with the media enjoying a marginally better rating at 3. Military (2.8) and religious bodies (2.9) enjoy better public confidence. <br> <br> Seventy-four percent Indians believed that levels of corruption have increased during the last three years, compared with a world average of 56% and Asia-Pacific average of 47%. In India, 1,000 urban respondents were queried for the survey that had 91,000 participants world-wide. <br> <br> “Most people interviewed this year perceive an increase in corruption levels in their countries in the past three years. This sends a clear message to leaders around the world that corruption continues to plague societies everywhere,” the report said.

Source:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7073774.cms

We are not confined to few high profile scams. We are more concerned  about poverty and corruption in routine life of general public.

10^th December

INTERNATIONAL  ANTI  CORUPTION  DAY.

poor people have paid around 900 crores as a bribe to govt. officials to get the basic amenities/facilities.

For a BPL card one has to pay minimum 3000/ ruppes and condition is same for all types centrally sponsored welfare schemes like, age old pension, Indira Awas yojana, NAREGA etc.

In my area for rural people pay  to pay the rent/LAGAAN of their land  at the rate of 50 to 100 rupees per year. to the revenue dept.

Even a court order is dificult to  be complied  without bribe.

For an emergent journey,  I was standing in que at Railway counter for purchasing ticket . A constable came to me and offered  convenient  seat in GRP coach at a sum lesser than price of valid ticket . Happily accepting his offer, I said, "let me get a ticket and then I will acompany you". Then he denied and said , he would provide  facility   without ticket only. I was ready to pay him for providing a seat only after having a valid ticket. But he didn't agree. 

To get the certified copy of any document, we pay more bribe than the actual fee.

One revenue staff (KaramChari) asked Rs. 200/- as a bribe 5 yrs back from me to sign in the demarcation report. But I was against paying bribe on principle, so I refused to pay.  The consequence is till now I have spent 10000/- and still my work is in pending. Dealing with govt. staffs are very difficult, either we follow their demand or else they does more harm.

Now I realize that I have suffered a lot due to my rigid perfectionist attitude.

Once one govt staff started telling me "Ram dware tum rakhware, hote na agya bina PAISA RE ( without money)"

Nitish Govt. in Bihar has tightened grip over corrupts, and has confiscated the property of a corrupt Inspector. Also has directed the entire govt. servant to declare their property till then their salary has been stopped.

Removing all the lack luster, loose, corrupt police personnel.