If the arms license has been rejected by the licensing authority, get the reasons in writing and file an appeal to the appellate authority. If still rejected approach High Court under Article 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32. An advocate having clear idea of foundations of freedom and liberty under Part III would know what to be done. I have explained it in brief in the following thread that Righ to Keep and Bear Arms has been explicitly aknowledged by Articles 19(1)(b) and 25 of the Constitution of India as a fundamental right -
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Objections-against-proposed-arms-rules-2015-121734.asp
Fundamental rights are so important that recently Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Sikhs have fundamental right to carry swords to even court rooms. It can be read via the following link -
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Sikhs-have-fundamental-right-to-carry-swords-in-court-rooms-137680.asp
Why a State is created? It is created to protect the Freedom/ Liberty of people. Therefore any interpretation of the Constitution must tilt towards freedoms and liberties.
In order to correctly interpret and understand the Constitution, it is of paramount importance to understand the natural laws of the creation that created it in the first place and allowed it to come into existence. In other words, it is about understanding its connections that flow from the rule according to higher laws of irreducibility, that are much above any written, man made Constitution.
In order to be balanced, just and reasonable with the natural laws of creation, the man made Constitutions and laws under them have to be in tune with the irreducible laws of God or nature. If the man made Constitutions and laws under them are not in tune with or respect the parent irreducible laws of God or nature, then they are bound to be unbalanced, unjust and unreasonable and thus bound to wither away in due course of time. Irreducible laws of God or nature or life cannot be reduced further or extinguished by anyone including any Constituent Assembly or Constitution or society. As per irreducible laws of God or nature, Sovereignty is a child and a dependent of Liberty. One may ask “What is the relation of liberty or its foundation with the right to keep and bear arms?” It has inalienable, indivisible, inseparable, irreducible and paramount relation.
The relation cannot be comprised under any color or cost. Saying Constitution does not recognize the right to keep and bear arms is clear violation of rule according to higher laws. It will become more clear after reading the subsequent paragraphs of this document. Since the rights under Part III of the Constitution are based on higher laws than the Constitution, the Parliament even during emergency, is incompetent to derogate these rights by using Article 358(1) except the political rights under Article 19. Similarly since Articles 20 and 21 are directly connected with higher laws than the Constitution, the President even during emergency, is incompetent to order suspension of enforcement of rights under Articles 20 and 21 using Article 359(1). Similarly the right to keep and bear arms has connections that flow from the rule according higher laws of irreducibility that are much above any man made Constituent Assembly or Constitution.
Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality. Also as per irreducible laws of God or nature, liberty regardless of its type or manifestation, is like a three legged standing table. Thus it has a very delicate balance. In order to maintain this delicate balance, all the three legs of liberty have to be firm, in equal amplitude and footing. The three legs of liberty are knowledge, property and violence. Damage or remove any one or more of these three, liberty does not remain liberty. These three are ageless, dynamic, enduring, living facts and truths, able to transcend both space and time. They will last for all time. They are not a Rubick's cube, something to be "figured out" or "solved". Depending whether one is friend of liberty or enemy of liberty, any or all of these three can be used for positive or negative purposes. All fundamental rights are children and dependents of these three facts and truths. Let me explain these three very briefly below for purpose of illustration: Knowledge includes all kinds of knowledge, all its manifestations and means. Thus fundamental rights of conscience, expression, religion, speech and the like are all also its children and dependents.
Property includes all kinds of property, its all manifestations and means. Thus fundamental right of property, right over one's own body, intellectual property and the like are all also its children and dependents.
Violence includes all kinds of violence, its all manifestations and means. Thus fundamental rights of self defense, right to keep and bear arms and the like are all also its children and dependents.
These three legs of liberty are all inalienably linked together with all the three of themselves.
And all through the ages to this day, there is a constant conflict between friends of liberty who protect these three legs of liberty and enemies of liberty who attack these three legs of liberty.
Whenever any of the three legs of liberty are damaged or shortened by enemies of liberty, the table of liberty is on the brink of destruction, in due course of time it looses its balance and falls. Now with example of three legged table, I have explained how the three legs or foundations of liberty are important for the very existence and enjoyment of liberty and its subset sovereignty.
For ease of understanding, now let me explain below with another concrete example, about how sovereignty is dependent on liberty, how liberty and sovereignty is bound to fall with the fall of any of the three legs of liberty.
Lion is called King or Sovereign of the jungle not without a reason. He is sovereign because he has all the three pillars of liberty, no other animal in jungle can surpass his ability to protect the three pillars of liberty. He has first pillar of liberty called knowledge i.e. he knows how to hunt. He has the second pillar called property i.e. marks and possesses territory where he hunts. He can unleash violence i.e. powerful teeth and claws. Remove any one pillar of liberty, other two pillars can't support the weight of his liberty. He is no more sovereign. See how it happens in examples of facts and truth below: Remove or bypass knowledge, like hunter lays a hidden trap. Lion has no knowledge or understanding that there is a trap. He gets trapped. He becomes the slave or prisoner of hunter. His liberty is finished. His life is also at the mercy of hunter. He is no more sovereign.
Remove the property i.e. territory of lion by encroaching on his prey base and his forest. He slowly but surely becomes slave or prisoner. His liberty is finished. His life is also finally at the mercy of hunter. He is no more sovereign.
Remove violence i.e. remove the teeth and claws of lion. He becomes the slave or prisoner of all those who have teeth and claws in the jungle. His life is also at the mercy of enemies of his liberty who have teeth and claws in the jungle. They do what they want, like injure, torture or kill him. His liberty is finished. He is no more sovereign.
Above example is equally and similarly applicable to any Constitution, it's State or it's citizens or persons. Remove or damage any of the above mentioned three pillars of liberty for any Constitution, it's State or it's citizens or persons, liberty is no more liberty for them. They are at mercy of those powers who enjoy all the three pillars of liberty. The citizens remain no more citizens in real sense but become de facto slaves. One may also call the three pillars of liberty as grundnorms of liberty. From all these it becomes clear that if the expression “liberty” used in Article 21 means liberty, then it is undoubtedly bound to have all the three pillars of liberty, including the right to keep and bear arms inalienably sine qua non embedded in it equally for all, including the Constitution, it's State, it's citizens and persons.
Even the most moralistic (modern “natural law”) and non-moralistic (“positivistic”) legal theorists today share a common moral goal: liberty/ autonomy. To prioritize individual liberty/ autonomy is to posit a common good and demand that society be structured for its promotion. We see this, for example, in the contemporary marriage laws in many common law countries, which allow either spouse to demand a unilateral “no-fault” divorce, prioritizing the liberty/ autonomy of the departing spouse over the other spouse’s desire for community and stability. Liberty/ autonomy in the sense of self-actualization and self-definition is taken as a metaphysical highest good (or right), ordering other, lesser goods (or rights). As the U.S. Supreme Court mused in its decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” We can and should, on this view, define and choose the nature and meaning of our own existence. And thus the Constitution, ought to be interpreted principally as an enactment for protection of individual liberty/ autonomy, must uphold this choice making quality of liberty/ autonomy, by forbidding laws that might intrude thereon. Academics, too, insist on the link between liberty/ autonomy and human dignity; Neumann, for example, insists on the necessity of privacy rights for human dignity, though he denies that this is a moral claim. Ref. Michael Neumann, The Rule of Law : Politicizing Ethics 56–57 (2002).
Thus, there appears to be at least one knowable common good for modern legal theorists: maximum individual liberty/ autonomy. Moreover, this moral good is found through implicit rejection of the fact/ value distinction. To prioritize individual liberty/ autonomy is to derive the “ought” of choice maximization from the “is” of the capacity to make free choices. Only if we assume that choice making is central to our human nature — our being, our essence, our conscience as it were — can such a view make sense. As a result of this form of reasoning, individual liberty/ autonomy is taken as a fundamental, grounding ideal (one might say a grundnorm) of the Constitution, the implications of which are to be and will be unpacked by judges, so long the rule of law and justice exists, but the further bases of which are not open to question.
Every constitutional guarantee is burdensome to society because it places a barrier between the individual and the State. Every fundamental right that we have come to regard as indispensable involves this tension between individual freedom and State control. The fundamental common law right to remain silent and have counsel present during a custodial interrogation, for example, has been assailed by no less a jurist than Justice White: "In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. Similarly the right to keep, bear arms and use arms is usually at the forefront of various emotional issues that periodically confront society, especially the legal community. Nevertheless, as guardians of the Constitution, the judges have an obligation to interpret the Constitution, irrespective of their personal feelings, so as to carry out not merely the limited intent of the framers of the Constitution but also the doctrines and laws of higher order that make up the Constitution. If judges abandon this obligation, the public will view courts as political institutions, their decisions less rooted in the law than in the personalities and politics of the individual judges, and will view the courts as not expounding the law but rather as handing down social policy in judicial dress, or giving fundamentally political judgments dressed in legalistic garb, to suit the perceived needs of the moment.
