PHC upholds arms licence fee hike

Dismisses petitions, directs K-P govt to curb weapons misuse

PESHAWAR:

The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has dismissed writ petitions challenging the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government's decision to increase fees for the issuance and renewal of arms licences, ruling that courts cannot interfere in government policy matters unless there is a clear violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

In a detailed 34-page judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Inamullah Khan declared that judicial intervention in policy decisions is not permissible in the absence of proven illegality or infringement of basic rights. The court further directed the provincial government to make the issuance of arms licences even stricter to protect society from the misuse of weapons.

The bench noted that 85 to 92 per cent of killings and violent crimes in K-P involve the use of arms, underscoring the need for tighter regulation.

The petitions were filed by the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Rifle Association and other aggrieved parties against the significant increase in licence fees, reportedly over 100 per cent. The petitioners argued that the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013 was being used primarily as a revenue generating tool rather than for public welfare, describing the fee hike as illegal.

Additional Advocate General Timur Haider, representing the provincial government, defended the decision. He told the court that under the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013 and Arms Rules 2014, the government has the explicit authority to revise fees. He emphasised that arms licensing is not merely an administrative function but a critical matter linked to public safety and law and order. The fee increase was approved by the cabinet after fulfilling all legal requirements, he added.

In its ruling, the High Court observed that the judiciary cannot act as a substitute for the executive in policy-making. As long as there is no evidence of malice or contradiction in the policy, the court said it would not interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction.

The court rejected all the writ petitions, bringing the legal challenge to a close.