Dear Friends,
Frist of all , I would like to pay our thanks to the members of NAGRI who presented well drafted representation before the members of Standing Committee of Parliament for illegal amendment in Arms Act , 1959 and I also would like to appriciate the members of Standing Committee who gave their due respect to the worries of citizen's of the country.
I read the 151th Report of the Standing Committee of the Parliament in the matter of Amendment in Arms Act , 1959 & on advisiory instruction issued by MHA vide F.No.V-11016 / 16 / 2009-Arms , Ministry of Home Affairs ,IS-II Division / Arm Section dated 06-04-2010. In the said report , members of the Standing Committee of Parliament has obsered that advisory instructions issued to all States / UTS is ab initio faulty , inasmuch as steps chosen by the ministry were in breach of Parliamentary proprieties and conventions. The committee also concluded in thier report that the Ministry of Home Affairs should put on hold the whole exercise of implementation of the Policy and immediately wirthdraw the so called Advisories dated 06-04-2010 issued ti all States / UTs. The Report of membrs of Standing Committee of Parliament are reporduced as iunder;
CHAPTER- VI
OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The Committee would like to place on record the fact that it considered the
subject “Arms, Fire Arms and Ammunitions”, allocated to the Ministry of Home Affairs,
under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 (Entry No. 41) in
seven sittings, even before the reference of the Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to it. The
Committee took up the subject for detailed discussion keeping in view the vastly changed
security, law and order and social scenarios in the country.
6.2 As mentioned in the preceding chapters, the Government posted the drafts of the
Revised “Arms & Ammunition Policy for Individuals” and the “Arms and Ammunition
Manufacturing Policy” on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs on 21st December,
2009, inviting comments from the general public by 6th January, 2010.
6.3 The Committee wanted to know from the representatives of the Ministry of Home
Affairs the background which prompted the Ministry to review the existing Arms Policy.
In this context, the Committee decided to examine the subject "Arms, Fire Arms and
Ammunitions" and felt that till such time the Committee had formulated its
recommendations and observations on the subject, the Ministry should not finalize the
new policy. The Committee repeatedly advised the Government not to proceed with the
announcement of the new policy and its implementation, unless Parliament had approved
the amendments to the Arms Act,1959 and the Arms Rules,1962, because in the event of
Parliamentary approval not forthcoming, the new policy would become infructuous. In
the sitting of the Committee dated 22nd April, 2010, when the notification of the new
Arms Policy came up for brief mention, the Committee reiterated that the Policy should
be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and desired that it be referred to the
Committee for detailed consideration. The Committee is constrained to note that instead
of responding to the suggestions and advice of the Committee, the Ministry of Home
Affairs went ahead with the finalization of the revised Arms and Ammunition Policy on
5th April, 2010 and put the same on its website.
6.4 The Committee feels that the notice given for the general public to comprehend
and comment upon such a policy of vital national importance is short. The draft Revised
Arms & Ammunition Policy should have been given wide publicity in the national and
regional dailies, viz. newspapers/weekly, fortnightly, monthly magazines, along with
adequate publicity through the electronic media as well and a debate generated to collect
the views of the public at large. The Committee also wishes to point out that this policy
was put on the website in Hindi after the intervention of the Standing Committee. The
Committee observes that such documents of national importance should have been posted
on the website both in English and Hindi as per the official language policy of the
country.
6.5 The Committee observes that two policy documents – (i) Arms and Ammunition
Manufacturing Policy and (ii) Arms and Ammunition Policy for Individuals – were
finalized by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 5th April, 2010 and put on the Ministry’s
website under the link “Circulars for Public’ disregarding the Committee’s advice. None
of the suggestions made by the Committee, except putting the Hindi version of the draft
policy on the net, forwarding policy papers to the Members and extending deadline for
submission of views/comments, was accepted by the Government. The advice given by
the Committee to the Government to follow the standard procedure in giving effect to the
changes in the existing policy, was also not heeded to. The policy as finalized was exactly
identical to the draft put on the website inviting comments from the public and the Home
Minister preferred not to lay copies of the policy documents in Parliament. The two
policy documents have been brought into force by the Home Ministry by issuing detailed
directives in the garb of advisories to the Secretaries (Home Departments) of all the
States and UTs. Curiously enough, the Ministry has enforced the new policy documents
by issuing executive instructions to be complied with strictly, without waiting for formal
parliamentary approval to the amendments to the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules,
1962.
6.6 The Committee fails to understand as to why the Government had not felt it
necessary to seek formal parliamentary approval before enforcing various new features
of the Policy, which included inter-alia amendments to the Arms Act and the Arms Rules
even before introducing the amendment Bill and laying the amendment to the Rules.
The Government may argue that the revised policy and the instructions issued
thereunder do not materially change the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms
Rules 1962, but the Ministry of Home Affairs should appreciate the fact that the changes
that have been made in the policy and the advisories issued are consequential to the
provisions of the Arms Act 1959 and the Arms Rules 1962 and this has been done without
getting the changes therein approved by the Parliament. This is against the basic
democratic principle of executive’s accountability to the legislature as per the scheme of
the Constitution.
6.7 It is a well established parliamentary practice that Ministers make statements in
the House in order to keep the House informed of matters of public importance or to
apprise the House about Government policy in regard to a matter of topical interest at
the earliest opportunity5. In deciding what statements should be made first in the House,
a distinction is to be drawn between matters of policy and news. In matters of policy,
Govt. should first inform the House. But in the case of news, information can be given to
Press before informing the House6.
6.8 The Committee wishes to reiterate that Policy statements should be made by
Ministers on the floor of the House, when the House is in session before releasing them to
Press or Public7. Where a statement is made outside the House even clarifying the policy
already enunciated, the Minister should also make a statement about that in the House at
the earliest opportunity8. The day the policy documents were finalized i.e. 5th April 2010
Parliament was in Session but the Government, for reasons best known to it and in
violation of established parliamentary practice, and convention, chose not to lay the
policy statements even when the Budget Session of Parliament concluded on 7th May,
2010. In the view of the Committee, the new Arms and Ammunition Policy which has
already been implemented – mostly through executive instructions and partly through
proposed amendment of the Act and the Rules, yet to be approved by Parliament,
amounts to exercise of power by the executive beyond the constitutional mandate. This
act of the Ministry of Home Affairs has taken the Parliament and the Committee for
granted.
5 Parliamentary Procedure, Law, Privileges Practice & Precedents by Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap op cit.
6 L.S. Deb., dt. 3.12.1971 op cit
7 H.P. Deb., dt. 1.9.1953 op cit; L.S. Deb dated 22.12.67 op cit
8 L.S. Deb., dt. 18.3.1970 op cit.
6.9 When the Committee asked the Home Secretary to apprise its Members as to
when the Home Minister was going to lay the policy documents on the Table of both the
Houses of Parliament and what were the compelling circumstances which prompted the
Ministry to announce the Policy through its website when Parliament was in Session and
issue advisories/instructions to all the State Governments for implementing the Policy,
without waiting for Parliament's approval to the proposed amendments to the Arms Act
1959 and Arms Rules 1962, the Home Secretary merely repeated that he would bring the
views of the Committee about laying of the Policy on the Table of both Houses of
Parliament, to the notice of the Home Minister. The Home Secretary did not respond to
the pointed query as to why the Government hurriedly finalized the policy and asked the
State Governments to implement the same. He chose to state in his usual refrain that he
would bring the matter to the notice of the Home Minister. Thereafter, nothing was
heard from the Home Ministry, nor were the Policy Documents laid on the Table of the
Houses, except the fact that the Arms (Amendment) Rules, 2010 were laid on the Table of
the Lok Sabha on 10th August, 2010 and in the Rajya Sabha on 11th August, 2010.
Subsequently, the Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25th
August, 2010. In this context the Committee recalls an observation made by the Home
Secretary before it and which has been quoted in para 2.30 of Chapter- II of this Report
that it is upto to the Home Minister to decide on laying the Policy on the Tables of the two
Houses of Parliament and he wishes the policy to be announced, then he would lay it on
the Table of Houses. The Committee deprecates this attitude of the Ministry of Home
Affairs in general and the Home Minister in particular in ignoring a six decade old
parliamentary practice and convention of first laying policy documents in Parliament and
then making them public. This obduracy on the part of the executive has set a bad
precedent in the functioning of our parliamentary democracy and the sooner such a trend
is reversed, the better it would be for the healthy and harmonious functioning of the two
arms of the State.
6.10 Having made the above observations, the Committee is not able to comprehend as
to why the Ministry proceeded with the finalization of the policy in a tearing hurry,
knowing fully well that the Committee was seized of the subject and was in the process of
making suggestions/ observations in the matter. The Committee strongly disapproves the
attitude of the Ministry of Home Affairs in ignoring the advice given by it to the
Ministry; in repeatedly making evasive statements before it by the Home Secretary; and
in justifying the wrong procedure adopted in announcing and implementing the policy.
6.11 The Committee observes that the replies dated 5th and 25th January, 2011, given
by the Ministry of Home Affairs are elusive and do not dispel the doubts in the minds of
Members of the Committee, such as the urgency shown in the implementation the policy.
The Committee observes that the argument of Ministry of Home Affairs that they have
only issued an advisory to the State Governments on 6th April, 2010 which contains
instructions about the procedural aspects of grant of arms licences, does not hold water.
Though the Ministry contend that the advisories issued to the State Govts. and Union
Territories, are merely guidelines, actually these are specific instructions on the subject
for strict compliance by the concerned authorities.
6.12 The Committee is of the considered view that the major components of the policy
document can be brought into force only by amending the Arms Act and the Arms Rules,
but the proposed amendments to the Act and the Rules, do not cover all aspects of the
new policy. The Committee observes that while the Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2010 which
was referred to the Committee, under Rule 270(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in the Council of States, for examination and report, sought to give effect to
only one component of the new Policy, the Arms (Amendment) Rules, 2010 give effect to
another component of the said Policy, whereas the major elements of the Policy had
already been brought into force by way of directions to the State Governments and UT
Administrations.
6.13 Be that as it may, the Committee is more than convinced that the course adopted
by the Ministry of Home Affairs in formulating, finalizing and enforcing the New Arms
and Ammunition Policy, is ab initio faulty, inasmuch as the steps chosen by the Ministry
were in breach of parliamentary proprieties and conventions. The Arms (Amendment)
Bill, 2010 and the Arms (Amendment) Rules, 2010 are consequential to the New Policy.
As the Policy Documents have not been laid on the Table of the two Houses of
Parliament, which consequently cannot be referred to this Committee by the Presiding
Officer, it has taken a conscious decision not to proceed with clause-by-clause
consideration of the Bill which would have been a piecemeal exercise in isolation and
therefore not desirable.
6.14 Keeping in view the wide ranging implications of the New Policy on the law
abiding citizens and its enforcement, mostly through executive fiat, the Committee
recommends to the Ministry of Home Affairs that they should put on hold the whole
exercise of implementation of the Policy, immediately withdraw the so called Advisories
dated 6.4.2010 issued to States/UTs; put the subject in the public domain for wider
consultations with the people and their representatives at various levels; take on board all
the views and suggestions, including the ones incorporated in this report with a view to
making the policy citizen–friendly and thereafter notify a Revised Policy and then lay the
same on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Subsequently, the Ministry should bring
a comprehensive Bill to amend the principal legislation and lay the amendments to the
Rules after due examination, precedent to the implementation of the Policy.
J.P.Chaturvedi
