1. THE PROSECUTION OF MR.

MAULVI DOES NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO PROFESSION UNDER

ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION

The State of Delhi (hereinafter, the Respondent) contends that prosecution of Mr. Maulvi does
not violate his Rights under Article 19 (1) (g).
1.1. Acquisition and possession of firearms is not a fundament right

It is humbly submitted that while Article 19 (1) (g) guarantees the right to practice or carry on
any occupation, profession, trade or business, the State is not prohibited from making any
stipulation relating to professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any
occupation, trade or profession.
1

It is further submitted that Fundamental rights cannot be availed in justification of an unlawful
act
2
or in preventing a statutory authority from lawfully discharging its statutory functions.
3
In
the instant case, Mr. Maulvi was arrested for contravening Section 30 of the Arms Act. Since
any offence committed under the Arms Act is a cognizable offence,
4
the arrest was carried out by
the police in discharge of their statutory obligation under Section 156 & Section 157 of the CrPC
as both the Sections stipulate for investigation and arrest of the accused on the basis of
reasonable doubt.
Therefore, since Mr. Maulvi had contravened Section 30 of the Arms Act he cannot invoke
fundamental rights to justify his unlawful acts.
There has been no restriction on Mr. Maulvis right to carry on trade or profession.


1
Sampat STC Mahavidhyalaya Etc. v.State of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 2010 NOC Raj 41; Ramal Arya v. State 1970
B.L.J.R. 536
2
State of Gujarat v.Dharamdass; AIR 1982 SC 781.
3
Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 2014 SC 1335
4

Moreover, it is settled that the license for acquisition or possession of firearms is only a statutory
privilege and not a fundamental right.
5
Further, it was observed by a full bench of the Allahabad
High Court in Kailash Nath & Others v. State of U.P. and Anr
6
that,
the obtaining of a license for acquisition and possession of firearms and
ammunition under the Arms Act is nothing more than a privilege and the grant of such
privilege does not involve the adjudication of the right of an individual nor does it entail
civil consequences.
It is submitted that the same proposition was reiterated in People for Animals v. Union of India
7

wherein the Delhi High Court held that no citizen has a right to carry firearms and the grant of
same is subject to fulfillment of the qualifications and criteria stipulated in the Arms Act, 1959.


5
People for Animals v. Union of India 180(2011)DLT460
6
AIR 1985 All 291
7
Supra Note 2