NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Karnataka government’s response on a plea filed against a Karnataka High court September 2021 order that had upheld the validity of the exemption granted to members of the Kodava community and Jamma tenure holders to carry and possess firearms without license under the Arms Act 1959.
The petition filed by an ex-army officer Captain Chethan YK has claimed that continuing the arms exemption granted to 'Coorg/Kodava Race' and 'Jamma tenure-holders' is violative of Articles, 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
“The conclusion of this Court is that the exemption provided to Coorg race and Jamma tenure-holders under Section 41 of the Arms Act, 1959 satisfy the tests of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the question of quashing the notification dated 29.10.2019 does not arise.” The Karnataka High court September 2021 reads.
“The Kodava community which is a martial race and is enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence period and the Jamma tenure-holders are also enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence period, have rightly been granted exemption for a period of 10 years and it is not a case where they have been granted exemption indefinitely and the exemption granted is certainly subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the notification issued by the Government of India is upheld and the petition is dismissed.” The HC order had added.
The petitioner by challenging the notification has again taken a ground that "the classification 'every person of Coorg Race' and 'every Jamma tenure-holder' is not based on any intelligible or even real factors and such classification is not necessitated by the objectives of the Arms Act of 1959, hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The HC bench had also observed that, "In the instant case, the documents on record reflect that Kodavas race have been considered to be a martial race from as early as 1890, and they are enjoying exemption since then."
"We have taken in view the statement of objects and reasons of the Arms Act, the weapons are made available to people for self-defence, unless their antecedent doesn't entitle them for keeping such weapons. Hence the question of interference does not arise." The high court had also said.