Ujjain man secures weapon license after seven-year struggle
- Subhash Singh Tomar applied for a sharp-edged weapon license in 2017 due to safety concerns while working in remote areas.
- After navigating a complex legal process, including filing a writ petition and appealing to the divisional commissioner, he finally received the license on September 12.
- Tomar's struggle highlights the need for clearer regulations and consistency in the enforcement of arms laws in India.
Subhash Singh Tomar, a resident of Ujjain, faced significant challenges in obtaining a license for a sharp-edged weapon over a span of seven years. His initial request in 2017 stemmed from concerns for his safety while working in remote areas. Despite a gazette notification from 1974 mandating licenses for such weapons, the district administration claimed no established procedure existed for issuing them. This contradiction led Tomar to navigate a complex legal landscape, highlighting inconsistencies in the enforcement of arms regulations. Tomar's pursuit included filing an application under the Right to Information Act, which revealed that licenses for sharp-edged weapons had been issued in the Indore division in the past. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs did not define sharp-edged weapons, complicating the regulatory framework. After facing setbacks, including a negative police verification report, Tomar appealed to the divisional commissioner, who ultimately granted him the license on September 12. This case underscores the broader issues within the regulatory framework governing sharp weapons in India. Tomar's experience reflects the disparities in enforcement, where ordinary citizens face legal hurdles while political figures wield such weapons without consequence. His relentless legal battle not only resulted in a license but also exposed the urgent need for clarity and consistency in the licensing process. Tomar advocates for reforms that would establish a clear licensing system for sharp-edged weapons, which could generate revenue for the government while ensuring public safety. His case serves as a pivotal example of the challenges faced by individuals seeking legal recognition for their rights to personal security.