Bengaluru, November 10 - A quiet yet telling exchange unfolded in Court Hall today as the Karnataka High Court examined why a Mangaluru-based pilot was repeatedly denied an arms licence that was supposed to come to him as a simple family transfer. Justice Suraj Govindaraj listened patiently as both sides argued over what should have been a routine application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The courtroom atmosphere shifted more than once, especially when the judge questioned the police’s reading of the law.
Background
The petitioner, Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha, a 41-year-old Commander/Pilot, approached the High Court seeking to overturn an endorsement issued by the Mangaluru City Police Commissioner. His father, now 75, has been holding a valid .32 caliber revolver licence since 1971-over 54 years. Under Rule 25, such long-term or elderly licence holders can nominate a legal heir for transfer.
Despite these clear provisions, the authorities rejected Saldanha’s application twice, insisting he had failed to show any “threat to life.” The appellate authority had already set aside the earlier rejection, but even then, a fresh endorsement repeated the same reasoning. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this insistence on demonstrating personal threat was not just wrong-it was completely irrelevant to Rule 25 transfers.
Court’s Observations
Justice Govindaraj went straight to the heart of the issue: Was a threat-to-life requirement even applicable when the licence transfer request is from an elderly parent to a legal heir?
Reading out the rule in open court, the judge clarified that Rule 25 has two situations:
- transfer after the death of the licence holder, and
- transfer while the licence holder is alive but has either crossed 70 years or held the firearm for 25 years.
The judge noted that both conditions were fully satisfied in this case. At one point, the bench observed, “When an application is made under Rule 25 during the lifetime of the licensee… there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life.”
He also underscored that the only mandatory checks are eligibility and the absence of adverse police remarks-none of which were disputed. The police’s repeated insistence on life threat, the court remarked, appeared contrary to the very wording of the rule.
Decision
Finding the police endorsement “contrary to Rule 25,” the High Court quashed the 24.07.2025 order of the Commissioner of Police. It also issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to process the pilot’s application strictly under Rule 25(1)(b) and issue the arms licence within four weeks of receiving the court order.
With that, the court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha vs State of Karnataka & Others (Arms Licence Transfer under Rule 25)
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
Case Type: Writ Petition (GM-Police).
Petitioner: Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha, 41-year-old pilot.
Respondents:
- State of Karnataka
- Additional Chief Secretary (Arms Act Appellate Authority)
- Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru